Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Trawlers (Grants and Loans)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement on legislation to increase the grants payable for the building of new trawlers.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I cannot add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 26th January.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while, so far as Aberdeen is concerned, a distinguished past member of the White Fish Authority has said that thirty-five new trawlers are to be built, nevertheless, the high price of building today is a very great deterrent? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time to consider increasing the grant available and reducing the percentage of the loan?

Mr. Amory: I do agree that the present costs of building are very high, but I believe that the progress made with this scheme since its inception has been very satisfactory, and there is the limiting factor that at present yards are filled for a period of between one and two years, so that I do not think that at the present time we could force the pace very much more.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the need for the replacement of old and out-of-date fishing trawlers by new ones and of the inability of many trawler owners to replace such trawlers owing to present high shipbuilding costs; and if he will make a statement of his plans for legislation designed to assist such owners by grants and loans and of his plans generally for assisting in the renovation and building of our fishing fleets where necessary.

Mr. Amory: Under the Grants and Loans Scheme introduced in 1953, 111 new trawlers have been approved and 40 of them are already fishing. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) on 26th January.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise the importance of timing the replacements to synchronise with or even precede the scrapping at the rate of at least one for one, as it is obvious that otherwise the fleet will diminish, with loss to everybody concerned?

Mr. Amory: The importance of the aspect which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned, is, of course, very much in our minds. It is one of the reasons for the fact that we have the present white fish subsidy. As to the second part of the Question, I have already said that I do not think that we can regard the progress to date as anything other than satisfactory. A total of 111 new trawlers has been approved, 40 have been built and are already fishing, and I understand that another 30 are likely to be completed during the present year.

Lady Tweedsmuir: When my right hon. Friend reviews the subsidy scheme which is due to end at the end of July, will he bear in mind the importance of having the right proportion of boats scrapped, at the present high price of scrap, and of boats which it is possible to build when berths are full? Will he, therefore, make sure that the subsidy for steam vessels is continued during that period?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly bear in mind the point which my hon. Friend has made.

Bees (Stocks)

Mr. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the decline in the number of stocks of bees kept in Hampshire and elsewhere during recent years, with a consequent loss of food production; and whether he will take action to encourage the keeping of bees.

Mr. Amory: I am aware that the number of stocks of bees kept in Hampshire and elsewhere has declined in recent years, but there is no evidence of any appreciable direct or indirect loss of food production which can be attributed to this cause. I already take action to encourage bee-keepers through our advisory and information service, and by exercising my powers to safeguard the health of bees.

Mr. Smithers: Is it not the case that the number of stocks kept in Hampshire, as shown by the county executive committee's figures, has declined by 50 per cent.? Does that not indicate that this is a serious matter, involving such loss of honey production? Would it not be advisable to call a conference to examine the various causes which have contributed to this decline?

Mr. Amory: The figures I have do not indicate such a disastrous fall as my hon. Friend has mentioned. In Hampshire the numbers fell from 14,500 to 13,500 between 1952 and 1955. The main cause was the exceptionally bad weather we had three seasons running.

Kippers (Dyeing)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision has been reached in respect to the banning of dyed kippers on health grounds.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 9th and 27th February.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that, despite the evidence which is available, people are still having to buy kippers stained golden brown in colour by coal-tar dye? Is it not about time that precautions were taken to give people proper kippers?

Mr. Amory: I explained to the hon. Gentleman that this matter is involved in

all the questions which arise out of the Report and of the representations that I have received recently, and that I do not feel that it would be right to decide the question of colouring matter for kippers in advance of deciding all the other questions that have to be considered. I have said that I hope to make a statement within about two months.

Cocoa and Chocolate (Prices)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the price cocoa manufacturers have been paying for beans from West Africa has dropped from 4s. 8d. to 2s. 3d. a lb. but that this reduction has not yet been passed on to shoppers; and if he will reimpose price control on this commodity in order to prevent excessive charges being made for distribution.

Mr. Amory: The prices quoted by the hon. Member are not representative. The annual average price per lb. of imported West African cocoa was 3s. 3¼d. in 1954 and 2s. 11¼d. in 1955. The retail prices of a number of brands of chocolate have recently been reduced. The answer to the last part of the question is "No, Sir."

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that the price of cocoa to the consumer has not been reduced? Is he further aware that the price was increased in July, 1954, when the price of cocoa beans reached its maximum; and does he not think that the customers should have the benefit of the reduction in the price of the raw material, in view of the fact that they have had to bear the increase?

Mr. Amory: I think that the hon. Lady will find that when the price of cocoa increased rapidly the prices of the finished product were not increased in anything like the same proportion as the price of the raw material.

Bacon

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the talks on the Anglo-Danish bacon agreement resumed at the Ministry of Agriculture on 27th February.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade on 27th February last.

Miss Burton: Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a vicious circle? Is he aware that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said that Questions referring to food prices should be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman? By how much does the right hon. Gentleman expect this tariff to increase the price of bacon to the consumer?

Mr. Amory: It is very difficult to say when one is looking nine months or so ahead. If this were happening tomorrow, I should not expect it to have any appreciable effect on the price of bacon to the consumer, but it is difficult to say whether the cost of the tariff will be paid by the consumer or the importer, or in what proportion by either, because it all depends on the relative strength of the market at the time.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply? We know that this is not going to happen tomorrow, but in October. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to know what effect it will have on retail prices and be able to inform the House, otherwise he was running a grave risk in coming to this thoroughly unsatisfactory agreement.

Mr. Amory: If the hon. Gentleman can tell me what the strength of the market will be in October, I might then be able to give an indication of the effect of the tariff.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman not forgotten Protectionist theories, and will he tell us what is the purpose of the tariff?

Mr. Amory: I am quite satisfied, as between the various alternatives, that the proposal to have a tariff is one which is in the best interests of the country and, I believe, in the long run, of the consumer.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how nearly the wholesale market prices for English bacon have approached those for Danish bacon in the past year; and if he will consider requiring the branding of English bacon according to grade so that consumers may recognise the best quality.

Mr. Amory: For about four months during the past year there was no

difference in the wholesale price quotations of English and Danish bacon. For the purpose of first-hand sales whole bacon sides, both English and imported, are graded according to external fat measurements. A significant factor so far as the consumer is concerned is the proportion of lean, and this cannot be accurately assessed until the bacon is cut.

Mr. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there has been a marked improvement in the quality of British bacon in the last year or two, and will he say, in answer to the second part of the Question, on which he has not given us any advice, whether it is possible to let the housewife know the quality of British bacon which she is buying?

Mr. Amory: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I agree that there has been a notable increase in the average quality of home-produced bacon. As to the second part of the question, the problem is that quality from the point of view of the consumer cannot really be assessed until the whole side of the bacon is cut. That is the difficulty in marking it in a way which would indicate quality to the consumer before it is cut.

Miss Burton: is the Minister aware that whilst there may have been an improvement in quality, there has been a decided increase in the price of bacon over the past two years, and is he prepared to look at that again?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that bacon is at all bad value at its present price.

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect he estimates that the bacon agreement with Denmark will have on the production of bacon by the British farmer.

Mr. Amory: I do not think it likely that the new arrangements governing the import of bacon will have any substantial effect on the production of pigs by the British farmer which is dependent on a number of factors including in particular the guarantee provided under the Agriculture Act, 1947.

Mr. Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will mean less bacon at an increased price?

Mr. Amory: I very much hope not.

Exploration of the Sea (International Council)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the date, place and agenda of the latest meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; if he will make available a report of its proceedings and conclusions; and when and where the next meeting of that council will be held.

Mr. Amory: From 21st October to 2nd November, 1955, at Copenhagen, when about 70 papers dealing with different aspects of fishery research were considered. The Council will be publishing a report of the meeting as is its custom. The next meeting will be held at Copenhagen in October this year.

Mr. Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman make these documents available in the Library, please?

Mr. Amory: I will go beyond that. I will send to the hon. and learned Member a copy of the report when it is issued, if he will promise me that he will read it. Even without that promise, I shall send it.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the number of Questions which I put to him on this subject is evidence that I do read the documents?

Mr. Amory: I have no doubt whatever that the hon. and learned Member will read this report.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as to the growth or diminution of the established Arctic fishing area; as to the hydrographic conditions in the sea that govern the shoaling and migration of fish; and as to whether the disappearance of a commercial species of fish from one area leads to its re-appearance or replacement in another area of the sea.

Mr. Amory: Information from the Council indicates no recent changes in the Arctic fishing area except for a slight extension to the west of Greenland. The reports on hydrographic conditions disclose various features, such as a rise in the average temperature of the North Sea in recent years, which may at times modify traditional patterns in the migratory and shoaling behaviour of fish. I

am advised that a general answer could not be given on present scientific information to the last part of the Question.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he realises that over-fishing, scientific development and international competition have made more necessary than ever the work of this very important Council?

Mr. Amory: I agree with that. At any time I shall be glad to arrange for the hon. and learned Member to go on one of my fisheries research vessels—[Laughter]—for a six months' visit to the Arctic.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that I have been hoping for that invitation for a long time, and that I shall be very glad to accept it?

Knackers' Yards and Horse Slaughterhouses (Inspectors' Visits)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many visits were paid by his inspectors, in 1955, to knackeries and horse-slaughterhouses; what proportion of the licensed premises this constitutes; and what visit has been paid to, and what orders have been made concerning, a slaughterhouse in London, N.15, the name of which has been supplied to him.

Mr. Amory: Forty-four visits were made to knackers' yards and ten to horse-slaughterhouses. There are I understand now only about twenty-five slaughterhouses used for horses and very few knackers' yards in which horses are slaughtered in appreciable numbers. The particular slaughterhouse in question was visited on 3rd January, 1956, by an officer of my Department. He found a number of defects, which he pointed out to the local authority concerned. I am informed by the local authority that the manager of the premises has already remedied some of these and has promised to remedy the others.

Mr. Chapman: But is not this a notorious slaughterhouse which was unfavourably commented upon by the Northumberland Committee as long ago as 1950? Is the Minister going to wink at these continued contraventions of the law? Is it not time that we had one really good prosecution in respect of some


notorious slaughterhouse like this, which would lead to the rest being cleaned up overnight?

Mr. Amory: It is open to anyone to institute proceedings. As to the hon. Member's statement that this is a notoriously bad slaughterhouse, I will look into that point.

Slaughter of Animals (Regulations)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce changes in the Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations, 1954, so as to vary the powers of enforcement in cases where local authorities are owners of the slaughterhouses.

Mr. Amory: I am reviewing the whole question of enforcement of these Regulations and will bear in mind especially cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Chapman: But is the Minister not aware that he said that about three weeks ago? Can he not yet say what amendments he can make to these Regulations? Is it not impossible for people to complain about these slaughterhouses which are owned by local authorities when they are told, "Nobody can prosecute because we enforce the law"? Is it not a totally stupid position, and ought not the Minister to make up his mind quickly?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I cannot make up my mind quickly: this is an extremely complicated matter, but it is open to anyone to institute proceedings.

Bulls (Exports to America)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bulls were exported during 1955 to the North and South American continents; and what proportion were valued at less than £300 excluding the cost of freight.

Mr. Amory: The total was 315. Information is not available showing the individual value of all the bulls but the indications are that the number valued at less than £300 was very small.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last part of his Answer

is disappointing, and that there is a potentially large market for worthwhile bulls at commercial prices in large parts of both continents of America, particularly those troubled by dwarfism? Will he see whether it cannot be made more widely known that good bulls are obtainable from this country at other than fancy prices?

Mr. Amory: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope it will receive publicity. I will certainly do what I can to see that it gets publicity.

Wheat Imports

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to encourage importers to buy more wheat from Australia and other Commonwealth countries and less from Argentina and other foreign countries.

Mr. Amory: Commonwealth countries supply the greater part of our imported wheat, and we hope they will continue to maintain their traditional place in our market. So long as they are competitive, there is no reason why they should not do so.

Mr. Russell: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report of the speech made by the Australian Trade Minister in which he said that we were impairing Australia's opportunities to sell her food products in our market, and has he any comment to make on that?

Mr. Amory: I saw the report of the speech, but I do not think that the present figures indicate such a depressing position as that.

Eggs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportions of supplies of shell eggs consumed in 1955 and 1938 were home-produced; and what estimate he has made of the saving in foreign currency at current market prices for eggs which have been obtained through increased home production.

Mr. Amory: In 1955, 90·6 per cent. of supplies of eggs were home-produced compared with 66·5 per cent. in 1938. The cost of the increased home production of eggs over and above the production in 1938 valued at the average 1955 c.i.f. price for imported eggs would


be about £40 million, but it is not possible to estimate the net saving of foreign currency resulting.

Mr. Hurd: When my right hon. Friend next has an opportunity, will he tell the poultry industry how much we all appreciate this great help it is giving towards our balance of payments?

Mr. Amory: Yes, I think that things have been going very well indeed, and the poultry industry is showing that it is keeping itself well up to date.

Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we are consuming far fewer eggs now than we were in 1950?

Mr. Amory: I am not sure that this is so. If it is, I think it is only marginal. One explanation is that there is such a wide variety of foodstuffs available that the consumer has a very free choice.

Defective Canned Milk (Sale)

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his attention has been called to the continued sale to housewives of old stocks of canned milk sold by his Department for animal feeding only; and whether he will now take steps to enforce the condition of sale upon purchasers that these supplies should only be sold for animal feeding and follow this up by stamping all tins with the words, "Not for human consumption."

Mr. Amory: Small quantities of defective canned milk are sold for animal feedingstuffs to approved buyers who give specific undertakings to my Department. The labels are removed. The disposal of the Ministry's commercial stocks of canned milk has almost been completed.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that unscrupulous traders who have received supplies of this sub-standard milk are hawking them round the shops at this moment? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that labels have been printed and placed on these tins which are being sold to consumers at the full price, and that therefore illicit high prices are being charged? Further, will the Minister reply to the last part of the Question where I suggest that the tins might be stamped "Not for human consumption"?

Mr. Amory: To reply to the first part of the question, there has been some

abuse, but a great deal of care has been taken to avoid any repetition of such action by unscrupulous traders. In answer to the second part of the question, I would say that to all intents and purposes the disposal of that product has now been completed; otherwise I would gladly consider the possibility of marking the tins in addition to stripping off the existing labels,

Mr. Elwyn Jones: In cases where there has been abuse, have there been any prosecutions?

Mr. Amory: That is a difficult matter. We can only proceed by civil action, and there we should have to prove that the Ministry had suffered damage. However, the question is under consideration and we have taken what I think is the most effective action of all, to make sure that a trader who has once been guilty of an abuse of that kind does not have the chance of getting any further supplies of this product.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: But is it not a criminal offence to sell these unfit commodities which are known to be unfit? The Minister speaks of civil proceedings to recover moneys on behalf of the Ministry, but surely a criminal offence is committed here which can be rendered the subject of prosecution in the magistrates' courts?

Mr. Amory: My advice is to the contrary, namely, that it would only be a breach of an agreement signed at the time my Department disposed of the milk.

Mrs. Slater: May I ask the Minister whether it is not possible for the local medical officer of health to take steps to protect consumers from this kind of thing, and whether prosecutions could not be brought by the local authorities under the Food and Drugs Act?

Mr. Amory: I understand that in no case to date has there been evidence that this technically defective milk was unsafe for human consumption.

Mrs. Slater: Ask Stoke about it.

Mr. Willey: In view of the disquiet that I am sure will be created by the replies of the right hon. Gentleman, will he look into the matter again to see whether there is provision for prosecution, and, if so, that his Department resorts to it?

Mr. Amory: I am looking into that point, and the advice I have received I have given to the House, but I repeat that in no case to date has there been any evidence that this defective milk would be injurious in the case of human consumption.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Pig Subsidy

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial effect he estimates the 10 per cent, import duty on Danish bacon will have on the amount of the subsidy for home pig production.

Mr. Amory: The amount of the pig subsidy will depend upon the difference between the guaranteed price and market prices which are determined by a number of factors, and it is impossible to isolate the effect of the duty.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear that the Government will get a double rake-off—£4 million or £5 million by way of import duty to make up for the profits they have been earning on Danish bacon imports up to now, and an equivalent amount in cutting the home-bacon subsidy to preserve the existing pattern, which is what the Government have promised to do under the agreement? Is not this in the nature of sharp practice on the part of the Government at the expense of the consumer?

Mr. Amory: No, I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in either part of his Question. The results are nothing like as simple as that. There is no question of a double rake-off, not even a certainty of one rake-off. As to the other part of his Question, I have said already that there is no reason to assume that there will necessarily be any additional burden on the consumers.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say when the report on the marketing of home-produced pigs will be available?

Mr. Amory: That is rather a different Question, but I said recently that I would not expect it for two or three months from the present time.

Pig Progeny Testing Stations

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the establishment of pig progeny testing stations to select the most economical strains for high-grade bacon production; and when the projected stations will now be ready for use by pig breeders.

Mr. Amory: All five sites have been chosen and tenders have been invited for building the first station at Selby, Yorkshire. This should be ready for use early in 1957 and the remaining four shortly afterwards.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is pushing ahead as fast as possible with the establishment of the pig progeny testing stations so that we can get nearer the Danes in efficiency in pig production, for this is a key point in that progress?

Mr. Amory: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; it is absolutely a key point. I can assure him that no one is more anxious than I am to have the pig progeny testing stations in working order at the very earliest possible moment.

Food Supplies

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of bacon, pork, eggs, beef, mutton, and lamb, respectively, were home-produced in 1938 and 1955; from which countries the balance was imported; and what percentage of the total was from each country.

Mr. Amory: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate any great increase in Argentine beef supplies during the next two or three years?

Mr. Amory: I should say that if the present policies which the Argentine Government have announced continue we can expect increasing quantities, particularly of chilled beef, from the Argentine.

Following is the Answer:



1938
1955 (provisional)



Per cent.
Per cent.


BACON AND HAM:


Home production Imports—

36

46


Canada
13

…



Denmark
29

40



Irish Republic
5

…



Netherlands
4

"6



Poland
4

7



Other Countries
9

1




—
64
—
54




100

100


PORK:


Home production Imports—

74

91


Australia
6

…



New Zealand
12

1



Argentine
5

…



Other Countries
3

8




—
26
—
9




100

100


EGGS:


Home production Imports—

66

91


Denmark
12

5



Netherlands
7

…



Other Countries
15

4




—
34
—
9




100

100


BEEF:


Home production Imports—

47

63


Australia
9

11



New Zealand
4

5



Argentine
31

16



Irish Republic
3

5



Other Countries
6

…




—
53
—
37




100

100


MUTTON AND LAMB:


Home production Imports—

37

32


Australia
17

10



New Zealand
33

47



Argentine
8

10



Other Countries
5

1




—
63
—
68



100

100


NOTES:


(i) …means imports amounting to less than 0·5 per cent. of total supplies.


(ii) "Other Countries" include all those whose individual imports totalled less than 5 per cent. of total supplies in both years.


(iii) Proportions relate to weights, except for eggs where they refer to numbers of eggs.


(iv) Mutton and lamb cannot be separately distinguished in 1938.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of apples, pears, tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, peas, broad, French, or dwarf beans, carrots, and potatoes, respectively, were home-produced in 1938 and 1955; from which countries the balance was imported; and what percentage of the total was from each country.

Mr. Amory: I am having these figures extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Mr. Crouch: I appreciate that, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will use his watchful eye to see that none of these commodities is imported just at a time when the English product is coming to its peak?

Mr. Amory: I will use both of my watchful eyes for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Agricultural Land (Mining Subsidence)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the large areas of arable land being flooded through mining subsidence; and whether he will take action to save the land by drainage.

Mr. Amory: I am aware that certain areas of agricultural land are subject to flooding as a result of mining subsidence. Drainage authorities have done something to improve conditions, but as the hon. Member will be aware, this is but one aspect of the complicated problem to which mining subsidence gives rise, and which is at present under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the drainage authorities to see if they can speed up the warping of good arable land so that it can be brought back into cultivation?

Mr. Amory: The whole question is a most difficult one. The drainage authorities have many responsibilities, and this is only one aspect of them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the drainage authorities are largely autonomous bodies. Some of them have helped, but I think the problem is a wider one than their responsibilities allow for.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Common Cold

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in experiments to prevent or cure the common cold; and what action is contemplated in this respect in the near future.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): Some progress has been made in recent years in research on the common cold, but as yet no means has been discovered by which the condition can be prevented or cured. The Medical Research Council is continuing, in cooperation with my Department, its efforts to solve this difficult problem.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the length of the experiments and the cost entailed, cannot the Minister give people like myself—I have had a cold for three weeks and cannot lose it—any advice on how to get rid of colds?

Mr. Turton: I am told that one very good way is to stay away from crowded places.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the Minister tell the House the name of the tablet which he is sucking?

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not had a cold for ten years because I take snuff?

Mr. Turton: It might be snuff or it might be gin—I do not know.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a very good way to avoid colds is to have a swim in Hampstead Pond every morning?

Atmospheric Pollution

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made by the Medical Research Council in its experiments into the effect of engine exhaust fumes on people in built-up areas; in what towns this has taken place; and what work has been carried out in taking blood estimations of persons exposed to vehicle fumes for long periods.

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what are the results and findings of the most recent investigations of the Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council into the effect of diesel fumes on lung cancer.

Mr. Turton: The Medical Research Council is continuing its investigations of the effect of atmospheric pollution, including that from vehicle exhaust fumes, on health. These investigations are being undertaken mainly in London, but also in other cities, including Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. Tests of the amount of carbon monoxide in the blood were recently carried out on a number of men exposed to vehicle exhaust fumes in city streets; the amounts found to be present were below the level regarded as dangerous.

Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister say whether any facts have yet been brought out about the dangers from the exhausts of diesel engines?

Mr. Turton: Nothing has yet been established on that point.

Mr. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend reconcile his answer with the letter of 12th December from Dr. Doll, a copy of which I sent him, one paragraph of which reads:
 On more general grounds, one can be fairly confident that the recent great increase in mortality from lung cancer has not been due to diesel fumes, since the increase in lung cancer has been almost contemporaneous with the increase in the use of diesel engines…"?

Mr. Turton: Dr. Doll is a member of a research unit of the Medical Research Council and is an accepted authority on this subject. His opinion, however, has not yet been officially accepted.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage further investigation into the subject in view of the general public anxiety about it? Can he also give some advice to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in view of the passage of the Clean Air Bill? Also, might I invite the right hon. Gentleman to the next sitting of the Standing Committee dealing with the Clean Air Bill?

Mr. Turton: The investigations are proceeding. It is a matter of very great importance, but there are a number of other factors which, equally, are carcinogenic.

Lung Cancer

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will make a statement on the most recent results of the researches into lung cancer.

Mr. Turton: As has already been announced, the Medical Research Council is at present studying the chemistry of tobacco smoke in order to determine whether there are constituents which may have the effect of producing cancer of the lung: other factors such as atmospheric pollution, are also being studied. Benzpyrene, a substance known to be carcinogenic, has been isolated in minute quantities both from cigarette smoke and from polluted atmosphere, but it has not been established whether this agent is one of the causes of cancer of the lung.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As one who smokes cigarettes and who has some fear of getting lung cancer in due course, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks that in the foreseeable future, the next year or two, it will be possible to isolate an element such as saltpetre or benzpyrene and trace whether that is or is not the cause of lung cancer?

Mr. Turton: It is quite impossible to make forecasts about the progress of research. What is absolutely clear is that benzpyrene has been shown to be carcinogenic to animals and must be assumed to be carcinogenic to men. But it is possible to get benzpyrene, not only out of tobacco smoke, but out of burning wood and cellulose, and also by burning both petrol and diesel oil.

Mr. Chapman: Since the ratio of liability to lung cancer of people who live in clean air, the country dwellers, compared with those who live in really polluted air, the town dwellers, is only one to two whereas the ratio of excessive smokers to non-smokers is fifty to one, is that not sufficient evidence, for the time being, at least to warn people against the dangers of excessive smoking?

Mr. Turton: The present Minister of Labour said last year that what has been shown was that there was a causal connection between smoking and lung cancer. That we know. Therefore, any wise hon. Member who is smoking to excess would be well advised to cease doing so.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Has not the time now come to give more information on this subject to the general public as it is, after all, largely a question of health education?

Mr. Turton: In these matters, I must take the advice of bodies set up to advise me on these problems, and I answered a Question on that matter last week.

Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that the Minister's Advisory Committee has gone on record as saying that the Minister of Health should at regular intervals give advice on this question of excessive cigarette smoking? Why does the Minister not take that advice?

Mr. Turton: I answered a Question on that subject last week. I think that the Advisory Committee is meeting again next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL HOSPITALS

Mentally-defective Children (Essex)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Minister of Health how many mentally-defective children are waiting for a place in a suitable institution in Essex; and the average time of waiting.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): One hundred and seventy-three on 1st January, 1956. The average waiting time for children during 1955 was approximately two and a half years.

Mr. Harrison: Will my hon. Friend please do everything possible to reduce the long wait because of the tremendous suffering which it often causes to the families concerned?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My hon. Friend will appreciate that until two years ago there was no new hospital building, and that it takes some time for new buildings to be erected. There are 108 additional


beds for mentally-defective children nearing completion at South Ockenden Hospital, and it is hoped that a further 80 beds will be provided as part of the 1957–58 building programme, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the turnover in mental deficiency homes for children is, unfortunately, practically negligible.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to be reading a newspaper in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not in order.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say whether the two and a half years' waiting period reflects the position all over the country, or is the position in Essex exceptional.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Essex is one of the counties which are not so well off and which have long waiting lists.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is a need for beds in all parts of the country? In view of recent cases in which patients have been found fit for discharge, is it not time for an inquiry into our hospitals for mental defectives, in which are detained many people who ought to be discharged to make room for others?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, he should await the results of the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Health. With regard to the first part, it is because we recognised the need that there are 6,000 beds in the pipeline.

Mr. Speaker: Miss Burton.

Mr. Callaghan: Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what a mental bed in a pipeline is?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to that question will have to be deferred because I have called the next Question.

Patients (Food Costs)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health if he will state, to the latest convenient date, the average sum allowed for food per patient's diet day, in mental hospitals and mental deficiency establishments, respectively, in the area of the South-West Regional Hospital Board; and similar figures for the country as a whole.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As has been previously explained to the hon. Member there is no fixed average diet allowance per patient. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant average weekly cost of provisions per person fed in 1954–55.

Mr. Collins: Cannot the hon. Lady give the figures now, as only two figures are asked for, and they must be available? Can she say if it is not the case that the average payment per day for patients' food is very little more than it was three or four years ago, although the cost of food has increased by about one-fifth?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: May I clear up one point for the hon. Member? Until two years ago the returns for feeding patients were based on cost per patient bed, and therefore included the staff feeding. Because we felt that, though necessary for computing the price of beds, that was inaccurate in relation to the cost of food per patient, the hon. Gentleman will find that about two years ago the analysis was given as cost per patient fed and therefore, though the figures look lower, in fact they are not.

Mr. Collins: Will not the hon. Lady give the figures for which I ask? They are available.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are four figures. For the hospitals in the South West Regional Area the figures are: mental hospitals, 16s. 9d.; mental deficiency hospitals, 15s. 9d. For all regional areas the figures are 16s. 11d. and 16s. 2d.

The figures are as follows:


—
Mental hospitals
Mental deficiency hospitals



s.
d.
s.
d.


South West Regional Area
16
9
15
9


All regional areas
16
11
16
2

Elderly Patients (Long-Stay Annexes)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health what estimate he has made of the number of patients, aged 65 years and over, now in mental hospitals who would,


subject to decertification where necessary, be suitable for transfer to long-stay annexes.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No precise estimate has been made.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Lady aware that a large number of elderly patients in mental hospitals have been found suitable for transfer to long-stay annexes; that, in other words, they should not be in mental hospitals at all? Will she ask her right hon. Friend to have regard to that, when planning further mental hospitals or institutions, because we want people to be in proper kinds of accommodation and not in mental hospitals when they ought not to be there?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I agree with what the hon. Member says. It is the policy of my right hon. Friend to encourage long-stay annexes linked with mental or general hospitals for persons who are suffering from mental infirmity due to old age and who do not require attention. In fact, 1,530 such beds have already been provided. It is our policy to do that in the future so far as possible. But I think it must also be taken into account that for existing old people, many of whom are aged over 70 and some over 80, it would be a very real hardship to uproot them and move them now. It must be a policy more for the future.

Beds and Expenditure

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health what percentage of all hospital beds in England and Wales are used for mental and mentally-deficient patients; and, in 1954–55, what proportion of the total capital expenditure on hospitals, and of total hospital expenditure, was allocated to mental and mental-deficiency hospitals.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: About 43 per cent., 25 per cent. and 20 per cent.

Mr. Collins: Does not this reply indicate that far too small a proportion, particularly of capital expenditure, in relation to the number of patients is going to the mental hospitals out of the funds available to regional hospital boards? Will not the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to make representations to the regional boards to see that there is a more

equitable distribution of funds to mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There has already been a substantial increase during the past three years. The figure for mental hospitals for the years up to 1954 was only 10 per cent. and is now 16 per cent. It was 6 per cent. and is now 9 per cent. for mental-defective hospitals. I think it fair to point out that as a result of this increase there are 4.470 mental deficiency beds in the programme now under way and 1,180 for the mentally sick, which is more of an advance than in the previous programme.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would not the hon. Lady agree that this increase—welcome as it is, though small—was only the result of the guidance given by the Minister to help the regional boards, and does not she think that the time has arrived for the Minister to advise a higher percentage to the regional boards for the future?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If one considers it on the basis of 6,000 beds in the programme of new hospital building, it is a very fair slice of the total building programme.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the hon. Lady realise that even a large percentage of the miserably small total capital expenditure is still thoroughly unsatisfactory for these purposes?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is vastly more than the hon. Gentleman and his party ever did.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No.

Farm (Towers Hospital, Leicester)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the farm which adjoins the Towers Hospital, Leicester, cost the Leicester City Council about £18,000 and that farm stock, worth a further £10,000, was also taken from the city; and if he will consider this before making a decision in regard to the disposal or retention of the farm and the stock.

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that this farm was taken over without any compensation at all, will the Minister say what changes, if any, which have taken


place in the use of the farm have encouraged or discouraged him from taking it over now?

Mr. Turton: I dealt with this matter last week. No decision has yet been reached about whether this farm should go on or not.

Mr. Janner: May I ask the Minister whether in these circumstances, if he decides to relinquish the farm, he will give it back to the Leicester City Council, who paid for it in the first instance, because the Council is primarily entitled to the farm?

Mr. Turton: It depends on the wording of the National Health Service Act. As the time has now passed for it being given back free, some financial adjustment will have to be made.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some farm employees at the Towers Hospital, Leicester, farm, have worked there from fifteen to twenty years; and if, in order to prevent hardship, he will have regard to their interests when considering any step to dispose of the farm.

Mr. Turton: Farm workers who lose their employment as a result of my review of hospital farming activities are entitled to claim compensation under the appropriate Regulations.

Mr. Janner: In those circumstances, will the Minister say whether their rate of pension will be the same if the farm is taken over as it would be were the farm not taken over? If not, will he taken into consideration the fact that this was one of the factors which would have been contemplated by the council at the time it took these people into employment?

Mr. Turton: The compensation they receive is governed by the National Health Service (Transfer of Officers and Compensation) Regulations, 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Toothpaste (Manufacturers' Claims)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the extravagant claims made by some toothpaste manufacturers and of the concern felt by the British Dental Association; and whether,

as such claims are undermining a great deal of the oral health teaching now being given, he will set up a committee to investigate the matter.

Mr. Turton: I am aware that some toothpaste manufacturers have sometimes made extravagant claims. I do not consider that another committee is required. I have my Standing Dental Advisory Committtee to advise me on these and other dental problems.

Miss Burton: While I admit not being greatly concerned about the Committee, may I ask whether the Minister is not aware that manufacturers of toothpaste who have been reasonable about claims for their products have become increasingly alarmed at the growing exploitation and profits made by less scrupulous manufacturers? Will he be prepared to consider that it is quite wrong that such advertisements should try to beguile people into thinking that toothpaste will cure decay when there is no evidence to that effect?

Mr. Turton: The British Dental Association has made that absolutely clear in a recent publication. Legislation for the control of advertisements is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that only about half the people in Britain ever clean their teeth? Is it not conducive to health to advertise advice to many more to do so?

Mr. Turton: I was not aware of the first part of that supplementary Question. The answer to the second part is, "Yes."

Tuberculosis (Mine Workers)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health (1) in view of the fact that in most cases pneumoconiosis develops very slowly among mine workers and other workers exposed by inhalation of noxious dusts and that superadded infection by tuberculosis causes rapid and progressive deterioration, what action he proposes to take to protect such workers from tuberculosis;
(2) in view of the fact that the aggregate rates of suspension because of pneumoconiosis associated with tuberculosis is higher in the north Staffordshire


coalfields than in any other in Great Britain and, in view of the danger of infection to other miners, if he will take special steps, in consultation with the Minister of Fuel and Power, to eradicate tuberculosis from all who work in the mining industry.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 27th February. There are already adequate hospital facilities available in the area for miners and others suffering from tuberculosis.

Dr. Stross: That really does not answer either of the two Questions; perhaps I have expressed them badly. Is the hon. Lady aware that the best-informed opinion, for example that of Dr. Fletcher who recently lectured on this matter in America, is that, given the suppression and eradication of tuberculosis in the pits, we can get rid of pneumoconiosis as a danger to the miners once and for all within a short time, say five years? What will her Department do to see that men are mass X-rayed at the pit-heads in North Staffordshire as they have been in South Wales?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: All new entrants to coal mines in South Wales and new entrants up to twenty-one years of age elsewhere are statutorily required to be medically examined. By the end of the year, it is hoped that arrangements will be complete for all new entrants to be examined radiologically. There has been an increase of mass miniature radiography units, and we have no evidence of lack of response to any requests for pit-head visits.

Dr. Stross: Again the hon. Lady is somewhat off the beam. Only 25 per cent. of miners in this area have been mass X-rayed, as compared with 90 per cent. of, say, rubber workers. Is she not aware that it is tuberculosis which causes the crippling form of pneumoconiosis and that unless we clean the pits of tubercule we shall not get anywhere?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any requests for further visits of the mass-radiography units to these areas will be favourably considered. The programme is generally made up months in advance, but everything will be done to meet such requests.

Mr. Snow: Does that mean that some pit managements are not forthcoming in asking for such visits of mass-radiography units?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: To my knowledge, no requests have been refused, but I should not like to commit myself without further investigation.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Lady therefore wait for these people to communicate with her? Does not her right hon. Friend take the initiative in this matter and tell these men that their chests are to be examined?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: What happens is that the units try to plan their programmes so as to cover an area as they think most necessary, but, if there are special requests for additional visits, they will certainly be sympathetically considered.

Dr. Stross: On a point of order. In view of the grave importance of this matter to north Staffordshire and to the country as a whole, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Sanatoria, North Staffordshire (Unoccupied Beds)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health how many beds, formerly occupied by cases of pulmonary tuberculosis, are now unoccupied in the sanatoria serving north Staffordshire; and what arrangements have been made so that such beds should be used for the treatment of other pulmonary conditions, including pneumoconiosis.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Approximately half these beds are in wards which could be set aside for non-tuberculosis patients if required.

Dr. Stross: Has the Parliamentary Secretary noted that in the area of which I am speaking, Stoke-on-Trent, there is a very fine hospital which is hardly ever used, the fever hospital, because now there are scarcely ever any cases of diphtheria and other fevers? Will she consider taking the advice of the hospital management committee, which is very interested in making use of it for the purposes that I have indicated in my Question?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not at all sure that the hon. Member is not trying to ask a Question to which he got a negative reply last week—that we should make a special centre for this treatment instead of using facilities at general hospitals. The most important point is that the use of any of these beds has not been refused to any patient. If the hon. Member has any evidence of a case not receiving treatment when the facilities were there, I will be only too happy to look at it.

Dr. Stross: As it is difficult to deal with this matter by Question and Answer, may I write to the hon. Lady about it more fully?

Orthopaedic Treatment, Oldham (Waiting List)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Health how many patients were on the waiting list for orthopaedic treatment, at the nearest convenient date, in the Oldham Royal Infirmary; what delay occurs in admitting patients; and how this compares with other orthopaedic departments within the region.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Five hundred and twenty-seven, on 29th February, on a joint waiting list with the General Hospital. Emergencies are admitted immediately and urgent cases in a few weeks. Men not needing treatment urgently wait up to three months and women up to two-and-a-half years. At other centres the average wait is about three months.

Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Lady aware that in a recent communication from the orthopaedic department of this hospital a constituent of mine was told that only patients whose names were entered on the waiting list on 1st March, 1953—I repeat, 1953—are being admitted? I cannot therefore reconcile that with the reply of the hon. Lady that they are waiting up to a period of three months; can she reconcile it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be referring to a case which, according to the medical opinion of the hospital, was not considered to be in need of urgent treatment. In the case of a woman the waiting list is longer, but if the hon. Gentleman says a much longer wait was required, I will certainly look into the matter again.

Mr. Williams: Is the hon. Lady aware that a case was brought to my notice today of a man with a slipped disc who has been waiting since October, 1955? The man is in great pain, and nothing is being done for him.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady has revealed another category of patients who wait two-and-a-half years before being admitted to hospital. Will she say whether that reflects the position all over the country, or is it special to the constituency of my hon. Friend?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I did say that in other centres the average waiting time is three months; but five more beds for females were provided last December to try to reduce the long waiting list for women at this hospital.

Mr. Williams: As I regard the Answer of the hon. Lady as unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Closed Beds, Batley and Staincliffe

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health how many beds have been closed in Batley General Hospital and in Staincliffe General Hospital, respectively, on account of a shortage of nursing staff.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Owing to shortage and current sickness among staff 12 beds are closed in Batley General and 70 in Staincliffe General Hospital.

Dr. Broughton: Is the hon. Lady aware that some seriously ill patients have been refused admission to these hospitals, and that that difficulty is causing concern in my constituency? Does not she agree that the problem of the shortage of trained nurses is nation-wide, and what does her right hon. Friend propose to do about it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Certainly, we need more nurses; but here it was unfortunate that 36 members of the staff were sick, which resulted in 46 beds being closed.

Nurses, Dewsbury, Batley and Mirfield

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health how many nurses are needed to meet the normal requirements in the hospitals under the management of the Dewsbury, Batley and Mirfield Hospital Management Committee.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The Regional Board estimates the total necessary establishment to be 435, of which there is an estimated shortage of about 70.

Dr. Broughton: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the shortage of trained nurses in our hospitals is a national problem, demanding immediate attention by her right hon. Friend? Will not she and her right hon. Friend look again at the report of the Working Party on the Recruitment and Training of Nurses, published in 1947, paying special regard to the proposal for a two-year basic training period for all nurses?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: All these matters have to be considered by the General Nursing Council. There is currently under way a nursing recruiting campaign, and we are always endeavouring to obtain more nurses, but the nursing profession, like all the others, is competing for a limited number of hands.

JORDAN (DISMISSAL OF BRITISH OFFICERS)

Mr. Crossman: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the provisions of the agreement between this country and Jordan that a number of senior officers should be attached to the Arab Legion, he has any statement to make on the situation arising from the dismissal of Glubb Pasha.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The House will have heard with resentment and regret of the summary dismissal of General Glubb and two other senior British officers of the Arab Legion. The lifetime of devoted service which General Glubb has given to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan should have received more generous treatment. It is right to tell the House that the King of Jordan and the Jordan Prime Minister have told Her Majesty's Ambassador that they do not want any change to take place in Anglo-Jordan relations, and that they stand by the Anglo-Jordan Treaty. The Prime Minister has also issued a public statement to this effect in which he said that the Jordan Government "intend to retain British officers now working with the Arab Legion in the work and services which they are carrying out. In their capacity as officers in the service of His

Majesty the King they naturally enjoy the same confidence and trust which their fellow officers enjoy."
The Jordan Government have also given assurances as to the maintenance of order and the protection of British lives and property.
Her Majesty's Government have given due weight to the Jordan Government's statement regarding these officers. They feel, however, that in view of the treatment meted out to the British officers who have been dismissed, it would be wrong for British officers in the Arab Legion to he left in an uncertain position. It is with this immediate problem that I propose to deal today.
In our opinion, officers in executive commands cannot be asked to continue in positions of responsibility without authority. We have therefore asked that such officers should be relieved of their commands. Those on the Active List of the British Army—about 15 in number—will be recalled; the future of those on contract with the Jordan Government will be discussed with that Government. Other British officers in the Legion are being asked to continue to carry out their duties for the present.
In this statement I have dealt only with the position of the British officers, which was the question asked by the hon. Member. We are, of course, considering the effect which these events will have on our relations with Jordan, and, indeed, on the whole situation in the Middle East. These are matters which we are discussing with our Allies, but I do not propose to comment on this wider aspect today.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the reasons for the Prime Minister's reticence, but may I ask him to clarify one or two points? First, does he agree that, despite all the assurances he has received, the dismissal of Glubb Pasha and four of his leading staff officers is, in fact, an anti-British coup d'état which has created an entirely new situation in Jordan?
Secondly, does he agree that the dismissal of these four officers and the news which he has now given of the resignation of all the others from executive posts with the Legion means that the Legion is now completely free from all British control? Does he not agree that that really endangers the position of our officers and their wives out there, and also of our scattered


units in the country of Jordan? What is he going to do about that?
Thirdly, does he agree that the removal of all British control will create the gravest danger of new incidents along the whole of the Israel-Jordan frontier? What is he going to do about that?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the effect upon the Treaty of the dismissal of General Glubb and these officers, under the terms of the Treaty there is no obligation upon the Jordan Government to employ British officers. There is an obligation upon Her Majesty's Government to supply British officers if requested. At the same time, I must add that it is clear that the whole spirit of the Treaty is based upon the need for consultation so as to ensure mutual defence, and in this sense Glubb Pasha's dismissal is against the spirit of the Treaty in the view of Her Majesty's Government.
As to the other points in the Question, I tried to emphasise to the House that these executive officers—about 15 in number—to whom I have referred, were being left in a position of nominal authority without actual authority. It seemed to Her Majesty's Government that that was not a position which we could accept, if only because of the possible international repercussions of such a position. Therefore, we have not removed those officers from any position of authority; what we have done is to ask that, they having been deprived of authority, they shall now be removed from an anomalous position, in which they should never have been put.
As regards the effect of these dismissals upon the international situation and upon Israel, the House must judge—and can judge as well as Her Majesty's Government. As to the effect of the presence or absence of these British officers, I would have thought that many would realise that the effect upon the military value of the Legion would be very serious indeed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not clear that the dismissal of Glubb Pasha and his two colleagues constitutes a major change in our relations with Jordan? Although there may have been no technical breach of the Treaty, is it not quite clear—as the right hon. Gentleman said in replying to my hon. Friend—that in spirit this action is in contradiction of the Treaty?

Is it not also clear that this action constitutes a major set-back for British policy in the Middle East—something which we shall have to consider very seriously indeed? Is the Prime Minister aware that we on the Opposition side cannot allow the matter to rest here? We must insist upon a very early debate, either this afternoon or, at any rate, within the next two days. Is the Prime Minister prepared to give an undertaking that we shall have that debate?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. I am not seeking—and my statement does not seek in the slightest degree—to minimise the seriousness of these events. I fully share the sense of gravity with which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is certainly right that this House should discuss these events this week, on a day which, perhaps, can be arranged between us.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it then quite definite that we shall have a debate this week? Have the Government decided the sort of Motion it would be, or is that a matter which has not yet been thought about?

The Prime Minister: The Government have not yet decided upon that. Perhaps we can discuss that matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to put a question which is somewhat urgent. Have any steps been taken to afford protection to our units in Jordan other than those associated with the Arab Legion? What protection is to be afforded to our air bases in Jordan?

The Prime Minister: Careful consideration has been given to both these matters. Our units in Jordan are either at the two air bases, which the right hon. Gentleman knows about, or at Aqaba. I should not like to say anything more at the moment in public except that we have naturally taken into consideration all that and also that we should take into account the assurance in this respect which the Jordanian Government have repeatedly made—[Interruption.] I think we should, because they have been our Allies for many years, whatever the differences are now—not only in respect of our Forces but of the Arab Legion and those attached to it.

Mr. Amery: While accepting that it may have been necessary to withdraw the


executive officers from Jordan, would not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that this is exactly what the more extreme nationalists in Jordan want to see done? Without asking my right hon. Friend to give us any details, could he at least assure us that we are not going to accept these reverses lying down and that something will be done to restore the general position in the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: What I have dealt with quite clearly in my answer is the immediate problem, which we had to consider over the weekend, of these officers. I believe the decision we have taken is the right one, and indeed the only possible one in the circumstances with which we are faced. As I said, I do not want to go beyond, and deal with general topics today. I cannot do it.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Prime Minister not give a rather more definite answer and assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) about the security of the scattered British forces that still exist in Jordan and which must cause a considerable amount of anxiety, in view of the excitement which exists in that country? Does he not think that this indicates another important incident which rather reflects the growing collapse of British policy in the Middle East? [HON. MEMBERS: "Abadan."] Hon. Gentlemen say "Abadan," but I would point out that Her Majesty's Government have pursued the policy of the Labour Government on that matter. Can the Prime Minister form any estimate of what the Conservative Party would have said if these things had happened under a Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: As regards the position of British Forces in Jordan, I have already said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that those forces consist of three elements: two aerodromes, of which the right hon. Gentleman will have been informed, and one British armoured force at Akaba. Those are the British forces there. As regards other matters, I can only assure the House that the general security of British populations, which are large in Jordan, is quite apart from anything connected with the military at all. I do not think I can add to anything I have said. I do not think

we shall be wise to say anything which will make their position more difficult than it is at the present moment.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very widespread anxiety and indignation about this matter and that there is a clamour, to put it no higher than that at the moment, for an emphatic reassertion of British interests in this area?

Mr. Wigg: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, despite the pressure he may get from his own wild men, that his prime duty and consideration at this moment must be the safety and security of British forces abroad?

Mr. Harold Davies: Has the Prime Minister been approached recently by the Jordan Government to revise the 1948 Treaty, and is it not correct that when we were approached to revise it the Jordan Government were told that it could not be revised for 15 years; and that the Government did not make use of the escape clause in that Treaty which would have enabled negotiations some months ago when we were approached?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so, but I would like details. I am afraid I have not the detailed information on that point to give without notice. My impression is that we have been asked several times, there have been several discussions, about revising the 1948 Treaty and that could certainly have been discussed. It is only fair to add that, so far as our records go, at no time in connection with that was there any question of Glubb Pasha's future. I ought to confirm what I know to be the fact, that only the day before these events Glubb Pasha had a long and intimate talk with the King and on the day before that our Ambassador did the same, and that there was not the slightest indication of any of these criticisms which have since been ventilated.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the fact that this area is probably the most insecure danger spot in the world, does the Prime Minister realise that the opportunity should now be taken for working out a more realistic British policy for the whole of the Middle East?

Major Legge-Bourke: While deploring what has happened, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it may not be that


the decision taken by the King of Jordan was the lesser of two evils and may be the responsibility of another State altogether? Can we have an assurance that, in examining this problem, Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that the real culprit in this matter may well be Egypt?

Mr. E. Fletcher: What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, in view of the dismissal of Glubb Pasha, with regard to the very large subsidies which this country is at present giving to the Government of Jordan?

The Prime Minister: I said at the conclusion of my answer that I was dealing immediately with the question of the officers. I added that we are, of course, considering the effect that these events will have on our relations with Jordan. I would ask the House to accept the fact that I cannot be expected to go beyond that today, the more so since we have readily offered the debate for which the Opposition ask.

Mr. Speaker: This is reasonable.

CYPRUS (SITUATION)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I can now make a statement on Cyprus, which is necessarily rather a long one. I recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House have exercised great forbearance in not pressing for a statement pending the outcome of Sir John Harding's discussions in Cyprus over the past five months and of my own recent visit.
The Governor had exploratory talks with the Archbishop last October to enable the issues to be established.
Discussions continued from November to January, both with the Archbishop and with other Cypriot leaders, and, in the light of these discussions and after giving most careful consideration to the views expressed by the Governments of Greece and Turkey, both at the tripartite conference in London and in subsequent discussions, Her Majesty's Government prepared a statement which represents their policy on both the short and the long term aspects of the problem of the future of the Island. This statement is as follows:
Her Majesty's Government adhere to the principles embodied in the Charter of the United

Nations, the Potomac Charter and the Pacific Charter, to which they have subscribed. It is not, therefore, their position that the principle of self-determination can never be applicable to Cyprus. It is their position that it is not now a practical proposition on account of the present situation in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Her Majesty's Government have offered a wide measure of self-government now. If the people of Cyprus will participate in the constitutional development, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to work for a final solution which will satisfy the wishes of the people of Cyprus, be consistent with the strategic interests of Her Majesty's Government and their Allies and have regard to the existing treaties to which Her Majesty's Government are a party.
Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to discuss the future of the Island with representatives of the people of Cyprus when self-government has proved itself capable of safeguarding the interests of all sections of the community.
This statement was shown to Archbishop Makarios and to leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community and was fully explained and discussed with them. On 2nd February, the Archbishop indicated that, although he was not prepared to associate himself with the statement, he was prepared to co-operate in the framing of a constitution on certain conditions. These conditions concerned the questions of the form of the constitution and an amnesty. It was thus clear that general agreement had been reached on the need to establish self-government and that the principle of self-determination was no longer a stumbling block.
Discussions on these outstanding issues continued with the Archbishop during the early part of February, involving a further exchange of correspondence. During this stage it became clear that the outstanding points were the amnesty, the reservation of public security to the Governor for as long as he thought necessary, and the question of a Greek elected majority. At the time when these three points emerged, the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who was in the Island at the time and who later returned at the Archbishop's request, made ceaseless and selfless efforts to assist in bringing about a settlement.
It was at this point, when the outstanding issues had been narrowed to three, that I decided, with the full approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to fly to Cyprus in order to ensure that everything within our power was done to reach an honourable settlement.
During my visit, I naturally had a discussion with the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot communities, who had throughout been kept informed by the Governor of developments. The Archbishop's letter of 25th February, which was received by the Governor on the day of my arrival in Cyprus, confirmed that he still sought clarification on certain points. After preliminary discussions, I therefore spoke to the Archbishop on the 29th February in the following terms: I said that I was prepared to give him certain undertakings on the understanding that he, on his part, would assure me that he would co-operate in the framing of a constitution, that he would encourage his fellow-countrymen to do the same and that he would make an appeal for the cessation of violence and would, thereafter, use all his influence for the restoration of peace and order.
The undertakings I offered were as follows: First, I told him that when law and order had been re-established, there would be an amnesty for all those convicted of offences under the Emergency Regulations (or of comparable offences prior to their enactment) except those involving violence against the person or the illegal possession of arms, ammunition or explosives, which would come up for review in accordance with the normal rules. This would have applied to offences committed before a certain date. Had the Archbishop accepted my statement, this date would have been today. I said that the release of detainees would begin at the same time as the amnesty. I confirmed what the Governor had already made clear, namely, that he was prepared to repeal all Emergency Regulations at a pace commensurate with that of the reestablishment of law and order.
Secondly, I said that his letter of 25th February raised certain questions concerning our intentions in the constitutional field and that I felt that the best way of replying was to restate to him in person our position on these points. I explained that Her Majesty's Government's objectives had been set out in the Governor's letter of 14th February. Her Majesty's Government proposed to send a Constitutional Commissioner to Cyprus who would draw up a liberal and democratic constitution in consultation with representatives of all sections of

opinion in the Island. It would reserve to the Governor all powers in the field of foreign affairs and defence. Public security would also be reserved to the Governor as long as he thought necessary. Control of all other departments would be handed over to Cypriot Ministers responsible to a Legislative Assembly representing the people of Cyprus as quickly as was consistent with an orderly transfer. The constitution would provide for an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly and would safeguard the interests of all sections of the community. It would be for the Constitutional Commissioner to recommend what arrangements should be made for this purpose, including the precise composition of the elected majority which he would define in accordance with normal liberal constitutional doctrine.
I told the Archbishop that the talks had now been going on for five months and that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the time had now come when it was essential to let the world know of the offers that they had made and to make their position clear.
After a lengthy discussion, I regret to say that the Archbishop told me that he was not prepared to accept my statement as a basis for co-operation and indicated that, in particular, he could not accept the exclusion of those carrying arms, ammunition and explosives from the amnesty or the reservation of public security to the Governor "for as long as he thought necessary." He also made it clear that he required the composition of the elected majority to be defined to his satisfaction in advance of the recommendations of the Constitutional Commissioner.
The full correspondence will be published in a White Paper, which will be available this afternoon.
As to the future, the first and most important duty is to restore law and order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] For this we have the resolution and the forces, and it will be done. In the constitutional field our objective remains the same, that is to reach agreement with the communities in Cyprus, in accordance with the principles that I have indicated.
It is difficult to find words in which adequately to express the admiration of Her Majesty's Government for the skill


shown by Sir John Harding in these discussions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The greatest possible praise is also due to him and those under him in both the civilian and Fighting Services for the calm and efficient manner in which they have discharged their duties in circumstances of immense difficulty.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recollect that he has made that very long and important statement in close proximity to another statement about that part of the world, and that unfortunately it is because a statement was made about Egypt at the same time as a statement was made about the future of Cyprus that language was used from that side which is very largely responsible for the situation in Cyprus? Will he, therefore, bear in mind that he ought not to allow himself to be influenced too much by what occurs behind him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Does he realise that the first part of his statement today retracts what was said in the House by the Government on 28th July, 1954—"Never, never"? That was stated on the same day as we announced the evacuation of the Canal Zone.
Furthermore, as there is to be a debate, I think next week, on the subject, does the Secretary of State realise that we must preserve our main comments today, but may I say that I do hope that the people of Cyprus will pay regard to the fact that a debate in this House might yet be able to make a far better contribution to the settlement of the problem than the Minister himself has yet been able to make, and that they will therefore in the meantime exercise all the restraint and patience they can until the House of Commons has an opportunity of repairing the mischief which the Government have done?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would hesitate at this stage to enter into purely partisan arguments by reminding the right hon. Gentleman of one or two things he has said which have scarcely lent themselves to the stability of the Eastern Mediterranean or the maintenance of British authority. As to what he said in regard to what, I assume, was meant to be a quotation from my noble Friend Lord Colyton, the then Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, I would beg the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has come to

interest himself in colonial affairs, to read the full statement and not just an extract from it.
Finally, in regard to what he has said about the proximity of the statement on Jordan to the statement which I have just made, I think that the proximity is valuable, in that it shows the immense security and defence problem which exists in the Middle East and in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the Secretary of State first of all to answer the question suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), namely, will there be a debate either this week or very early next week? Assuming that that is so, one of the major points is the question of an amnesty. Does he not draw a close analogy between this case and that of Ireland? Will he bear in mind that in the case of Ireland a complete amnesty was given—that even where there were 21 persons convicted of murder and 121 of attempted murder there was a complete amnesty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that there will be a debate, I believe early next week, on this subject. As for amnesties and acts of oblivion, before I went to Cyprus I steeped myself in the story of Ireland, Kenya and Malaya. In Ireland there was an amnesty which came, not after an agreement, but after an agreement had been ratified by a representative body in Ireland in the Dail. It was, in fact, a treaty between a Government here and a provisional Government in Ireland—a very different situation. I shall be glad to develop that in the debate.

Sir J. Hutchison: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, in the steps which have been taken, and particularly the terms of the agreement, were the Turkish minority in agreement with what Her Majesty's Government were putting forward, and did they want us neither to go faster nor to go more slowly? Secondly, does he not think that the happenings in other parts of the Middle East should encourage him to stand firm on what he has put forward?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Replying to the first part of that question, unhappily there has not been an agreement, but the Turkish community have been kept fully


informed throughout of the views of Her Majesty's Government, and we have naturally paid great regard to their own points of view and, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), to the proximity of Cyprus to Turkey.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Do I gather from the Secretary of State's statement, which we shall want to study, that the major conflict with which this trouble began, the right to self-determination, is no longer a matter in dispute and that therefore the differences between us are narrowed to the three points he has mentioned? Are the Government stating to the House and the country that negotiations are now at an end and that the conflict, the end of which none of us can see, is to go on? Are they stating that view, when the major problems have been settled and when all that remains are these issues which some day we shall have to settle anyhow'? Do I gather from the statement that negotiations have been completed and that we are to go on in Cyprus without any end in sight at all?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that, in addition to studying my statement with care, the right hon. Gentleman will also study the White Paper with care, because that is a very relevant document. I do not think it would be wise at this stage to add to what I have said.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that I shall study the White Paper with care, as I try to do in all these matters. May I ask my question again? Do we gather from the statement that because of these three points—I will not discuss them now; that is for the debate—which are not the major issues about which the conflict started, negotiations have ended and the conflict continues?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman has said that these are not the major points. I can certainly say that the big issues—the principle of self-determination and the question of selfgovernment—are in a sense out of the way and that now we are down to other points; which makes the failure of the Archbishop to condemn violence all the more inexcusable, for it is a fact that this failure to condemn violence is an active encouragement of it. As a result, he is using the weapon of violence in

order to try to secure agreement along his own lines for what are not the two main points.

Mr. Griffiths: The Secretary of State knows that I myself have joined in the appeal against violence, but I asked a question, because obviously the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State realise that there is to be a debate. Is the debate to take place on the assumption that negotiations have now ended? To put it simply, is it on that basis of not?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper he will see the point of view of Her Majesty's Government on the outstanding issues. As for the constitutional issue, he knows that it is still the view of the Government that we hope that a constitution will emerge, but I should be misleading the House if I suggested that in present circumstances this seems very likely at the present stage.

Captain Waterhouse: Will my right hon. Friend not refute the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question that whenever there is a dispute between this country and a foreign country it is always this country which is mistaken? [HON. MEMBERS: "Which is the foreign country?"] Is it not a fact that the statement made by my right hon. Friend is ample proof of the tremendous concessions which he has made?

Mr. McGovern: In view of the great dangers, both in this issue and in the issues in the Middle East generally, would it not be greater statesmanship if the leaders of the three parties got together to try to find a solution to these difficult problems?

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we on this side of the House are as anxious to protect and preserve the interests of the United Kingdom in the Mediterranean, despite what was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), as anybody on that side of the House, but that we should like an answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths): are we to assume, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that negotiations have now terminated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that British interests should be preserved, and I have never disputed it. The Government's view has been put forward over the last five months, and we have made a series of concessions to the Archbishop's point of view. I must confess with distress that as soon as one obstacle is out of the way another one, unheard of until a week or two before, rears its head. I can do no more than say now that our point of view stands as put forward in my statement and in the White Paper.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There is to be a debate. We cannot continue with the matter now.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Edward Charles Redhead, esquire, for Walthamstow, West.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after 10 o'clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Birch.]

ORDER OF THE DAY

SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Air Estimates, 1956–57

Order for Committee read.

MR. NIGEL BIRCH'S STATEMENT

4.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): I beg to move, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.
The Air Estimates for 1956–57 call for the expenditure of £479½ million. In addition, there is a sum of £38 million in appropriations for aid which is our share of the most generous aid given by the American Government. The net total is smaller than the estimates for 1955–56 but the expenditure is likely to be considerably greater than it was in that year.
I should like to start by saying something about the shape and kind of Air Force we need to fit in with the priorities in the White Paper. I shall then go on to speak of the supply of aircraft, guided weapons and equipment generally and I shall end by saying something about manpower economy, training and administration generally.
The first two things I want to speak about were discussed at some length during the defence debate. There were many extremely good speeches in that debate, particularly on the supply of aircraft. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is not present because I was going to pay him a compliment. I thought his speech was extremely good. I agreed with a great deal of what he said—not with all of it by any means, but with a great deal. I am sorry if I have to give him a rough answer now, but his speech was answered at considerable length by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I do not propose to go over the same ground today. I hope I shall be able to cut down my speech a little as I am afraid we have got off to a slow start in this debate.
When we are considering the effectiveness of the deterrent, I think it might sometimes be worthwhile to put ourselves in the place of a potential aggressor. No aggressor is likely to start a war unless


he can be confident that he is going to gain by it. He cannot possibly gain by a war if his own country is subjected to nuclear bombardment. Therefore, provided the free nations have the bomb and the means of delivering it, no aggressor is likely to start a war unless he is confident that he will be able to knock out all the means of retaliation before that retaliation takes place. There is never very much comfort to be had in thinking about nuclear wars, but there may perhaps be some cold comfort in reflecting how difficult a task it would be for an aggressor to knock out all the bases available to the free world simultaneously.
It is just for exactly the same reasons that our V bombers are not only our contribution to the deterrent, but also our best hope of defence if war should come, simply because our best hope of defence would be to knock out the bases from which we were being attacked. Therefore, it is a fact that the V bombers must have the first claim upon our resources, but the bases from which our bombers operate must be protected. It is no good having bombers which can be surprised and destroyed on the ground. That calls for an up-to-date early warning system tied in with the Continental early warning system and the whole forming part of a modern defence organisation. By "a modern defence organisation." I mean the Metropolitan Fighter Force, and missiles when we have them.
If we have that sort of a defence we shall not only be protecting our bases, but also providing what protection can be given to the civil population and what warning can be given to them in the event of an attack. I believe, and always have believed, that this deterrent will be successful. I believe it will certainly be successful provided we can keep a depth to our defence. We cannot organise this kind of defence unless the N.A.T.O. line can be held in Europe and our contribution to holding that line is the Second Tactical Air Force in Germany. That also I think should rate as a deterrent in Germany. I believe this will be successful, but, as was pointed out quite often in the defence debate, the fact that it will prevent a global war does not mean that it would stop the cold war or that we can necessarily avoid every limited war. Therefore, preparations to meet cold and limited wars must have second priority.
Not all cold wars call for high performance aircraft. The kind of operations carried out in Kenya and Malaya do not call for high performance aircraft at all. In fact, it may be true to say that the older the aircraft are the better they are, but that is not the case in a limited war such as that in Korea, where only the best type of aircraft was good enough. The Middle East Air Force and the Far East Air Force are primarily organised to deal with cold and limited war, but both those air forces are small. It is important that we should be able to reinforce them quickly in case of trouble, and we do, in fact, carry out frequent exercises to see that our squadrons and their backing are sufficiently mobile to move quickly enough to deal with those sorts of situations.
Glancing ahead for a moment, I believe that for the cold and limited war we shall always need aircraft, fighters and bombers, and whatever the development may be in guided weapons and however sophisticated they become, they can never take the place of aircraft for that sort of task. Indeed, the more sophisticated guided missiles become, the more they are necessarily tied to an elaborate ground radar system. The air alone, of course, cannot deal with everything. In many cases troops are required, and that is where Transport Command comes in. I shall say very little about Transport Command now as that is the subject of the intervening debate on an Amendment, which will be discussed later.
The only point I want to make about Transport Command now is that its object is rapid use in emergency and not for regular trooping. There have been two recent examples of emergency action. One was the move last Autumn of an infantry brigade to Cyprus and the other was the move this year of part of the Parachute Brigade, also to Cyprus. There was something slightly new in that last move in that all the heavy equipment went in Hastings of Transport Command and the troops were moved in Shackletons of Coastal Command. There has been some criticism, very naturally, about moving troops in Shackletons, which are very far from comfortable aircraft in which to travel. Having travelled in one myself, I can speak from experience, but emergencies are not comfortable things. Very careful long-distance exercises were


carried out some time before this operation to make sure that carrying troops in Shackletons was a feasible proposition, and, in fact, the move took place with complete success. Air trooping in cold war is a new task for Coastal Command, and I hope that it will be an infrequent one. The fact that troops can be carried in Shackletons in an emergency is an uncovenanted benefit for which we should be thankful.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, that the purpose of Transport Command is not to move troops other than for emergency operations, is the concomitant of that decision that the work should be done by private charter companies?

Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Member knows, both under the late Government and under this Government regular trooping contracts have all been carried out by private companies.
I was saying that Shackletons of Coastal Command have a rôle to play in a limited war, as indeed had the flying boats in Korea, but the main task of Coastal Command is to back up the Navy and the navies of our N.A.T.O. Allies in a global war. The Royal Air Force has many varied tasks and, no doubt, from time to time, they will change in accordance with alterations in our strategic priorities, but a point on which I should like to lay emphasis is that for hot and limited war only the best equipment is good enough. The more powerful the weapons, the more complex the equipment, the more important that is.
The complexity and cost of modern weapons and the increased power of the weapons mean that we certainly cannot afford, and probably do not need, an air force of very great size, but what we have must be first-class. We must have first-class aircrews, first-class ground crews and long-service Regulars to keep them flying. I cannot foretell what will happen about National Service or whether we shall be able to get an all-Regular force.
As far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, we have been extraordinarily fortunate in our National Service men. We have had wonderful service from them and many of them have brought to the Royal Air Force skills which it would have been difficult to do without. It should

go out from the House how grateful we have been, and are, to them. Having acknowledged that, however, if I were asked "Would you rather have an all-Regular force if you could get one?", I would, of course, say "Yes" every time.
I now turn to the men and to the machines, and will speak about the machines first. This is a matter which, very rightly, concerns the House deeply. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply dealt with it at length last week.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: What is the present state of Regular recruitment to the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Birch: I shall come to that later. I am dealing with the machines first. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply dealt with this matter fairly fully. He acknowledged all the extremely painful delays and disappointments that we had had. He also said a certain amount about the things that have gone right. He spoke of some of the reasons why things had gone wrong and he spoke about some of the things that we are trying to do to put them right. I do not want to go into all that again, but there are a few things I should like to add.
The V bombers are the spearhead both of the deterrent and of defence. Therefore, they are far more important than anything else. I believe that the prospects for the bomber force—the really vital force—are not discouraging. We already have squadrons of Valiants, and they are building up at a fair pace. From our experience of it so far, the Valiant looks like being an excellent aircraft. For the tasks we want it to perform, we believe that it is now as good as anything flying in Russia, and, possibly, as good as anything flying in America for the same job.
Coming along behind the Valiant is the Vulcan, which we hope, with some confidence, will be in squadron service this year. Both the Vulcan and the Victor are superior in performance to the Valiant, and both of them have a considerable development potential. We already see ways by which their performance in the later marks can be appreciably improved. So much for the V bombers.
The tactical or light bomber is, of course, also important both in global and in limited war. We are proud of the Canberra and it has done us well. It has


broken a lot of records and the Americans have done it the compliment of using it in their Air Force. We believe that it is better than its counterparts on the other side of the Iron Curtain. The Canberra, too, has a certain development potential still left in it. And so I say that the bomber position is not at all discouraging.
I now turn to the fighter position, which is not so encouraging. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply spoke about the Hunter and its gun troubles, which still persist, and I do not want to repeat anything he said, but while I am on the subject of fighters there is something I should like to say to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). When I was speaking about fighters at the time of the Korean war, I said something about our fighters being non-operational. What I meant was that not having swept-wing fighters at that time, our fighter force could not have participated in the war in Korea in the same way as the Sabres and the MiG-15s did. I did not mean that Fighter Command was non-operational or that it was not well trained or capable of taking on the bombers that might come against it. If anything I said could be misinterpreted, all I can say is that I am very sorry. So much for the Hunter.
For night and all-weather protection, we are relying on the Javelin. The Javelin has had the usual maddening delays and setbacks, but we have it in the Service now and we are forming the first operational squadron. There has been a rather backhanded gain in the delay in that owing to the delay in the airframe, we have been able to use the later marks of engines, and more powerful engines, in the aircraft now being delivered. Therefore, the first batch—when we have got them—will be better than they otherwise would have been. The intention is that the Javelin will, in due course, carry the second generation of air-to-air guided missile, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply spoke last week.
One considerable advance in the technique of fighter defence is that we have re-equipped our early warning system round our coast with new types of radars. The tie-up with the control and reporting systems on the Continent has also been very much improved. These new radars and the new liaison with the Continent

were tried out in exercises this year. They worked extremely well and came up to every hope that was pinned upon them.
As the speed of bombers constantly increases, however, so it becomes increasingly vital to get greater range for the early warning system. For this purpose, we are now installing in Germany the same type of radars as we have round our own coasts. These will be operated by the Second Tactical Air Force. The information from these radars will be fed into our own system. By this means, we shall get considerably longer notice for our fighters, for our bombers and also for our civil population.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The infrastructure.

Mr. Birch: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister recall that several right hon. Gentlemen opposite made fun of the infrastructure some years ago, but are now boasting of it?

Mr. Birch: I do not think they were making fun of infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) did not care for the word when the right hon. Gentleman first produced it in the House; he said that he would meditate upon it and consult the dictionary. Of course, the whole infrastructure programme was vital and we have carried it on exactly from where the right hon. Gentleman left it off. In putting up the new system of radar, we have had a lot of generous help from the Americans and some of the components in the system are of American origin.
Before ending this part of my speech, I should like to speak about surface-to-air guided weapons. Some hundreds of full-scale rounds have been fired and a production order has been given for sufficient surface-to-air guided weapons for full-scale trials, but we want to be extremely careful before taking the plunge. We want to be certain that they suit our guidance system and that they can deal with the aircraft that might be sent against us when they are in use.
One point I should like to stress is that in the nuclear age it is no use shooting down bombers over our own country. The whole training of Fighter Command is directed to shooting down


bombers out to sea. The old conception of area defence is completely out of date. The long-range surface-to-air guided weapon is a difficult one to develop and its development will take time. Some of those developed in America are short-range weapons which would, in effect, not be of very much use to us.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: Is this ground-to-air weapon of British design or of American design in which we have manufacturing rights?

Mr. Birch: It is of British design. I am still talking about machines. The quality of our maritime reconnaissance force in Coastal Command will be improved this year by the introduction of the Shackleton Mark III. This is a larger and more comfortable aircraft and carries more anti-submarine devices. I will not speak about the new equipment for Transport Command because the Under-Secretary will be dealing with this when he comes to the intervening Amendment.
I now turn to the question of manpower about which the right hon. Gentleman was asking me. Recruiting both for aircrews and for long-term Regulars has not been good during the past year nor has it been good in the Women's Royal Air Force. It is far too early to say what the effect of the new pay code will be. The first reactions are good. It would, however, be very foolish at this stage to make any kind of prediction, and I certainly shall not do that. There are however other moral and material things which are important besides pay. There is pride in the Service and pride in wearing the Queen's uniform. On the material side, I doubt if there is anything that makes a greater difference than married quarters. That is something in which both sides of the House have taken the most active interest.
At the end of the war, there were 6,700 married quarters in the Royal Air Force at home and abroad. Today there are over 21,000, and another 5,000 are under construction or already contracted for. Although not everybody entitled to a quarter can get one at once, I think that it is true to say that the back of the problem has been broken. We can all take satisfaction in that. The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) had a lot to

do with bringing in the first Armed Forces (Housing) Bill, and I had the privilege of getting through the House a subsequent Bill which increased the amount of money which we can spend on these things. All that I can say is that it is working, that we are getting the quarters and that the position is much better than it was.
But it is not much good having a house if one has to move out of it directly one has got into it. There is no doubt that frequent postings have been very trying since the war. This is called "turbulence in the Royal Air Force, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will remember. A certain amount of turbulence is inevitable in Service life. For example, every time a new V bomber squadron is formed, different categories of aircrew and different tradesmen are needed on the station where it goes, and therefore turbulence to a certain extent is unavoidable. But it has got better in the last few years, and a number of practical steps have been taken.
Postings within commands have been reduced to a minimum, that is to say that, provided efficiency is maintained, airmen are not posted around simply to adjust some temporary or slight fall in the manning level. Nowadays it is possible for a key man to stay up to five years at one station, and it is also possible for airmen serving abroad to opt to prolong their tour of duty. Another thing which has proved useful is the practice of asking an airman after he has finished a period of training, or after he has re-engaged or has returned from abroad, to what area he would like to be posted. We have found that it has been possible to put about 45 per cent. of airmen into the areas where they want to be. That, I think, has been something valuable and something to mitigate these various troubles.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the average tour of duty overseas?

Mr. Birch: I think that it is two-and-a-half years. As well as getting and keeping the men and encouraging them to re-engage it is vital not to waste them. Therefore, I want to come to the question of saving manpower. One ought to bear in mind that if the Royal Air Force had not got the men they might be helping the economic strength of the


country, and the obligation not to waste men is particularly binding at a time when there is National Service.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often asked for an inquiry into the length of National Service and we have refused on the ground that that must be a responsibility of the Government. But we have always encouraged, as, indeed, did hon. Gentlemen opposite, limited inquiries into specific subjects. There have been five such inquiries into the Royal Air Force since the war and in four of these w?, have been fortunate enough to have the assistance of businessmen, trade union officials, or both, some under the late Government and some under the present Government.
Two of these inquiries are mentioned in the Air Estimates Memorandum, both of which were presided over by Air Chief Marshal Sir Leslie Hollinghurst, who recently retired. The second of these Reports, which deals with the servicing of aircraft, has only just been received, and I am not in a position to make a statement about it today. Action has been taken on the first. The first Report dealt with group and command headquarters at home. The view of the Committee was that too much administrative work was done in group headquarters, which led to duplication because the work was done once at command and once at group, and the committee was therefore of the opinion that there were too many groups in administrative commands at home. As a result of this Report, two group headquarters in Maintenance Command have been abolished, with the saving of manpower elsewhere. Two hundred and fifty officers, warrant officers or civilians of officer status have been saved and there have been 250 airman posts also saved.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If this is the Committee in which the Chairman of Woolworths took part, why was he not kept on that Committee?

Mr. Birch: I think that he took part in connection with the second Report which I am not now discussing, but I may be wrong on that. He certainly gave very valuable assistance indeed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like me to thank him on his behalf for the work which he did.
We have also had a valuable Report on the administration of the Air Training Corps, which was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor) and which will in due course, I think, be of great assistance to us.

Mr. George Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the membership of the Committee, will he say if there has ever been a Service committee upon which Mr. F. C. Hooper has not served?

Mr. Birch: Mr. Hooper has been very generous with his time, and, again, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like me to convey his thanks to him.
Leaving these committees aside, we really have no need to call upon a committee before we get down to the work of saving manpower. That is a job which goes on all the time, and by far the most imaginative and effective work which is now going on in the R.A.F. has nothing whatever to do with any outside committee at all.
The application of scientific methods to the manpower question has been pioneered by the R.A.F. For many years we have had an Air Ministry Manpower Research Unit, and the object of all this scientific method has been not only to save manpower, but also to adjust establishments in a highly-technical and rapidly changing Service. The Air Ministry Research Unit in the past has done good work, much encouraged by my noble Friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley and the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton.
In general, the inquiries have been directed to specific points, catering or whatever it may be. We are now extending these inquiries into the whole life and work of a station, and not only the specific aspects of it. One experiment is looking into first and second line servicing of the operational aircraft. It has been found that there can be a considerable saving in manpower, provided that two conditions are fulfilled—that the supervising staff is slightly larger and that we have the number of tradesmen with the correct skills. That has worked well and resulted in some considerable savings.
There was an interesting experiment at Benson airfield. It was designed to find out what were the main reasons why


airmen did or did not re-engage. One of the interesting discoveries made was the desire to have the technical and administrative wings on the airfield broken down into squadrons. There were flying squadrons, and the suggestion was made—experiments are going to test it—that it would be a good thing to have technical squadrons, signal squadrons, engineering squadrons, and so on, so that the relations between officers and men would be far closer. It has been found that this arrangement helps to improve morale as well as efficiency.
We are now testing out these various conclusions in a much bigger way, and a special staff has been set up at the Air Ministry, called the Manpower Utilisation Committee. The job of this Committee is to work out the application of these principles to operational airfields, remembering, of course, that the different Commands all have different problems because they have different types of aircraft.
There was a good deal of talk about "bull" last week, and a good deal of talk about it by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but all that has nothing to do with the Royal Air Force. It has not been a very exuberant growth of the Royal Air Force. What we are doing now is to send senior staff to make special studies of work methods not only in the Air Force but in industry. In this we have had the very valuable help of a number of young National Service officers with honours degrees in scientific subjects of various sorts, who are helping to work out all these techniques.
There is nothing at all dramatic about a work study. It basically involves meticulous recording of detail and then drawing right conclusions from the data. I believe that the experience drawn from industry can have the most solid and substantial results in saving manpower and in increasing efficiency.
We are also strengthening the higher direction in the Air Ministry in this respect. We have appointed an air vice marshal who will take up his appointment at the Air Ministry next month to press on this work studies business and when the air vice marshal takes up his command he will have taken a work study course in industry and will come

back to draw all the threads of the studies together, and press on the work.

Mr. F. Beswick: What has been done about the possibility of maintaining the work done by civilian firms outside? Some statement on that was promised, but we have not heard any more about it.

Mr. Birch: That is one of the subjects covered by the second Hollinghurst Report. I am not in a position to make a statement about it today. A certain amount of that is done in the third line and the question of whether it can be reasonably extended is under consideration at the moment.

Mr. Wigg: This is an imaginative proposal, on which, I am sure, the House congratulates the right hon. Gentleman. Will he be good enough to see that the results of this study are made available to the Minister of Defence, so that he can force them down the throats of his reactionary brethren at the War Office and the Admiralty?

Mr. Birch: I know that the hon. Gentleman always takes a fatherly interest in the Secretary of State for War, and, no doubt, if my right hon. Friend fails to notice these things, the hon. Gentleman will point them out to him himself.
As I was saying, these studies cover the whole work and life in a squadron. They cover everything from the servicing of the aircraft to the personal services the airman receives in such matters as getting rail warrants or his pay. The House may be interested in one or two details.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of recruitment last year for the Regular Air Force?

Mr. Birch: I do not keep them in my head, but I will certainly give them at the end of the debate.
I thought the House would be interested in one or two details. At the present time, when an airman arrives at a new station he has to fill in a lot of forms and visit a number of offices, but it has been found that by centralising the organisation an airman can get through in two or three hours what it used often to take him two or three days. For instance, it
was found that centralised pay


parades took up to an hour of an airman's time in a week. Now it has been found perfectly possible for an officer to pay his section while it is on the job and lose no time at all. Another matter on which a great deal of work has been done is on the layout of stores, equipment and spare parts. We have astronomical numbers of spare parts in the Royal Air Force. By work studies it has been found possible to cut down very much the time taken by airmen in issuing equipment by getting the stores racked in correct order.
These examples which I am giving are small improvements in themselves, but they add up to a very considerable saving in manpower, and I believe that they are means of improving morale. I want to make it quite clear that they are still experimental, but we are beginning to apply them at stations in every Command, and I am confident that they will enable us during the next two or three years to save some thousands of posts. Personally, I am determined to push on with the work with all possible vigour.
I cannot deal with the whole question of training, but there are one or two aspects of it about which I should like to say a word, particularly about the higher technical training of officers, because technical training is the subject of an Amendment, which will not be called, in the name of the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. L1. Williams). There was a time when it was possible to hope that with advancing science some things might become simpler, and that hope has not been altogether in vain, because I believe it is still true that it is easier to maintain a jet engine than it is to maintain an advanced type of piston engine. But, considering all developments as a whole, things are getting more complicated all the time—for instance, bombsights for bombing from great heights or in cloud and darkness, new navigational devices, new airborne interception devices, and, most recently, the most difficult problem of the lot, the problem of the guided missile.
The most obvious consequence of this increase in complexity is the need for very highly trained technical officers. A number of things have been done in respect of it. The first is the Technical Cadet Scheme, open to young men with the General Certificate of Education at the

advanced level in physics and pure and applied mathematics. Those cadets start by spending a year at the Royal Air Force Technical College at Henlow. Then the scheme splits into two, some of the cadets remain at Henlow and receive permanent commissions at the end of their course while others go on to a university as officers.
The first group of cadets to complete their three-year course at Henlow finished last year, and the results are extremely satisfactory. Nearly all of them obtained the Higher National Diploma in electrical engineering. Officers who are training by the other method, that is going through the universities, are still reading for their degrees. There are fifty-one officers at the universities, thirty-six of them at Cambridge, reading for the mechanical sciences tripos, and others at Oxford, Bristol, Glasgow, London and Southampton.
In addition to the technical cadet scheme, a number of serving officers take post-graduate training as technical officers. In particular, there is a post-graduate course in guided weapons which has been running for some time. A number of officers who have been through this course are now serving in the research and development branches of the Ministry of Supply.
But however good our technical officers may be, and they need to be very good, the real backbone of the Service is and will remain the general duties officer. We want the very best men we can get at Cranwell. Cranwell has already built up a great tradition of leadership and the present Chief of the Air Staff is the first Cranwell cadet ever to hold that appointment. Recently, the period of training at Cranwell has been extended to three years, for two reasons. The first is to enable the cadets to finish their training on jet aircraft. The second, which I rate as equally important, is to ensure that they have a good general education as well as a purely technical one.
I should like to say a few words about operational training. We attach great importance to training involving trips abroad, because we are most anxious that our squadrons and their backing should be able to move quickly. Canberras have carried out practice moves to the Middle East and Far East. There was exercise


"Beware" in the summer, which tested out the new radars and co-operation with the Continent. It was highly satisfactory. Maritime reconnaissance training, of course, goes on all the time.
Accidents always get plenty of publicity, but it is right to see things in proportion. The accident record over the past year has been a very good one. The accident rate in 1955 was the lowest since 1935 and this in spite of the fact that more jet flying was done than ever before. The first eighteen months' experience with the Hunter has also been good. Over this period it has had a better accident record than the Meteor, the Venom or the Vampire had during a similar period of their service lives. I do not want to tempt providence and I make no prediction. All I put before the House is the simple fact that on the whole things are tending to get better rather than to get worse.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend referring to figures for aircraft which are written off or for fatal casualties to personnel?

Mr. Birch: I am referring to fatal casualties.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: On what basis—hours or miles?

Mr. Birch: Fatal accidents per 10,000 hours.
Most of what I have said about training has been about the training of officers. One of the things which has most impressed me on going back to the Air Ministry has been the skill and determination with which the problem of skilled ground crew has been tackled and largely solved. It has not been an easy time—a time when just those skills that are most needed in the Royal Air Force are so scarce in industry. However, the job has been tackled and, I think, has been done very well. No one can go round Royal Air Force stations in this country without being most deeply impressed by the feeling of what wonderful quality we still have in our aircrews and our ground crews.
The death of Lord Trenchard marked the end of an era in the Royal Air Force, and perhaps the appointment of a Cranwell Chief of the Air Staff marks the

beginning of a new era. The old era saw the glories of the Battle of Britain. Let us pray that the new era will see the still greater glories of peace preserved.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I entirely agree with the last words of the Secretary of State. The main aim of the Air Force today is, of course, to preserve peace. It is the most important point that we have to consider. I shall try to follow the right hon. Gentleman's speech in its shape, dealing with weapons and manpower, but I confess that I found the speech very disappointing. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman must have exhausted himself in the defence debate last week.
I was amazed to find that the Minister had not with him the figures of Regular recruiting about which he was asked. When it is realised that the basis of so much of the defence debate turned upon those figures, it is surprising that the Minister did not have them at his fingertips. They are relevant to the whole question of National Service.
The background of the debate is the sad fact that today we have an Air Force which, I am told time and again by people who have some connection with it, is less effective today in relation to the threat which it has to meet than it has been at any time since 1938. If the principal effort of the Air Force is to maintain the nuclear deterrent, we must have the V-bombers and their successors, and we must have the ballistic missiles to succeed them. It is extremely depressing that the best the Secretary of State can say about the V-bombers, let alone the others, is that the position is not discouraging. If we have the nuclear deterrent and we have to have our bombers, then, of course, we must prevent those bombers and the ballistic missiles from being destroyed on the ground. That leads to the provision of an early warning system and of missiles and aircraft to destroy the enemy bombers or missiles.
Besides having the nuclear deterrent force and other aircraft and missiles to prevent the deterrent force being knocked out, we must also have conventional manned aircraft for use in regions where there is no elaborate radar control system, and we must have conventional aircraft in the shape of transport planes.
All this adds up to the minimum requirement. If we start with the deterrent and then have a force for policing or transport, they all amount to a formidable requirement on our production and design and development resources. There is, of course, the further major problem that all our scientific manpower in this respect, as in all spheres of science, tends to the production of quality—Nobel Prize winners in the extreme case—and to fall away badly in numbers at the lower level. This technological weakness is alarming. A White Paper has been issued at last on the subject, but that is not the topic of debate today. However, we have to take account in this debate of this shortage of scientists and technologists and industrial potential. If we are to take account of it, we must do three things.
First, we must increase the supply of scientists and technologists. That is a matter for debate on another occasion. Secondly, we must reduce unnecessary demands on our limited skill and materials and resources. We all know that there is a very limited supply of trained technologists in this country; otherwise why was the White Paper published last week? Obviously, therefore, we must emphasise greater concentration of our demands, and the first thing which follows from concentrating our demands and reducing them to a minimum is that we must rely more on our Allies and not duplicate their work.
Thirdly, we must do something about our aircraft industry, which is not working efficiently. In a leader on 18th February, The Times complained that in spite of producing failures each year many aircraft firms have contrived to show record profits. I quote:
 The broad answer seems to be to increase the rewards for success, and the penalties for failure, in development work.
I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not apologise and explain how it was possible for us to have reached the stage in which in one year in this decade we are spending less on the Air Force than on either of the other two Services. The word "shortfall" has been used in the White Papers and in debates. That word is the jargon of failure. It is not an answer. It is the failure of the Government, because this is their responsibility.
The fact is that private enterprise in its penny packets of small units of design, development and production has failed to deliver the goods. What do the leading people in the industry say? By "leading" I do not mean only those who do well out of it, but those who design, develop and produce successfully. They want some concentration. First they want concentration of brains for design and development, and then concentration of manufacturing capacity.
How much concentration is adopted? Sir Roy Fedden wants three engine firms and six airframe firms. Lord Brabazon wants four firms. The fact is that, in any discussion of the Air Force and the money we are asked to spend on it, we forget that the ordinary sanctions of private enterprise have failed to work and that the inefficient firms are still properous. What are the Government going to do to roll up the inefficient firms which are wasting valuable resources and money? We cannot afford the present wastage.

Air Commodore Harvey: Would the hon. Gentleman say that Short Bros. and Harland Ltd., which are Government-owned or, in the majority, Government-owned, are more efficient than the other firms?

Mr. de Freitas: I am not saying that. I am discussing nationalisation. I am putting a point with which I hope the Minister will agree: that we have limited capacity in design and development and yet our units of design and development and production are smaller and more munerous in this country than in the United States. I am not suggesting how this should be tackled, but I am saying that the problem is recognised, and I want to know what the Government will do to solve it.
Having looked at it from the point of view of the industry, it is right that we should look at it from the point of view of the Air Ministry. How much is the Air Ministry contributing to this shortfall? Is it not being conservative in regarding this problem as that of the production of aircraft rather than as the production of weapons systems? By that I mean the means of conveying the weapons and fire control. Is there not dangerous conservatism in thinking in terms of aircraft as an end in itself? Is it not time that we studied the American


Air Force procurement system and put in its proper perspective the aircraft as merely a means of conveyance?
Last year, and also this year, when the Hunter was under attack because of its guns and because it could not carry air-to-air guided missiles, the reply of the Ministry was that it flies beautifully. I know it does. I have been told that by people who have flown it. But that argument is a symptom of a dangerously conservative trend of thought; firstly, because such a statement should never be the answer to criticisms of a weapons system; secondly, because it makes me afraid that there may be a certain amount of flying perfectionism in the Air Ministry, which may be a factor in what is undoubtedly a lack of combat weapons today.
I will give an illustration. I have heard people criticising the Valiant saying that the engines were inadequate. Yet, as far as I know, its engines have exceeded everything set for them. I have heard American pilots criticising the B.47 as being difficult to fly, and particularly difficult to land. Any perfectionist would have rejected that aircraft, but in its hundreds, and perhaps in its thousands, it has carried and carries the nuclear deterrent of the West. Daily it flies, and it is still very difficult to land. Paragraph 70 of the Defence White Paper states:
 Particular emphasis is being placed on the development of the ballistic rocket as a deterrent to aggression.
What is our position on ballistic and guided missiles? Are we not behind the United States and Russia, and is not one of the factors the fact that we have the traditions of a pilot's Air Force? I will return to that point in a moment.
I should like to have some information about ballisic missiles. What does the reference in paragraph 70 mean? I hope that we shall not try to go into production and development of the intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 5,000 miles. It would be fabulously expensive. The Americans have been doing this for years at a gigantic cost. On the other hand, are we not going to develop the intermediate ballistic missile with a range of 1,500 miles as a successor to the successor to the V-bomber? If that is so, it makes sense. I hope it is so.

Are we going to try to develop antiaircraft missiles and anti-missile missiles like the United States Bell Aircraft Company under Mr. Dornberg, who invented the V.1 and the V.2? I hope not. We cannot afford to do so. We must rely on our Allies. On the other hand, I read in Flight about the de Havilland infra-red detection air-launched antiaircraft missile. If we are ahead there, then it is right that we should pursue that line of development.
I should like to have it made clear that the Government are considering the general principles and that we shall not overlap at any time with the United States Air Force, unless we have special need for a different weapon or where we are at present ahead in development. I am thinking of the V-bomber, which we ordered because we had a special need for it. Where we have gone some way, and look like being successful in design and development, that work should not be thrown away.
I have referred to the United States Air Force, but I really meant the United States Forces, because the United States, in view of its size and resources, can afford more than one flying service and their keen competition. I well know how keen that competition can be. During the war I spent six months attached to the United States Air Corps and six months attached to the United States Naval Aviation. An incident occurred which reminded me of the competition which the Americans have but which we cannot afford. Someone at the Air Corps officers' club said that the Jap Navy had a fighter faster than the United States Army Air Corps had. A normally very placid major got extremely worked up and shouted, "What are we going to do about it?" He returned to his normal state of mind only when it was pointed out that it was the Jap Navy, not the United States Navy, which had the faster fighter.
As I said, the Americans can afford the luxury of three Services, but we certainly cannot. I suggest that we should really begin studying—I am not asking for more than that—the amalgamation of the Navy and the Royal Air Force. The problems are, of course, great. What worries me is that in a few years' time when the Navy's rôle and importance have been reduced there may be an malgamation hurriedly, it may not be the


joining together of two equals, and we may have lost a precious national asset, the traditions of a very respected Service, the Royal Navy.
The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) has always taken a keen interest in navies. I was delighted the other day to hear about an incident at Potsdam in 1945 when the right hon. Gentleman was discussing with Stalin and President Truman what should be done with the German Navy. The right hon. Gentleman said that it should be sunk to the bottom of the sea because it was unclean and steeped in infamy. Stalin suggested that it should be divided between Russia and this country. The argument continued for some time, and then Stalin said, "You like compromise, Mr. Churchill. Here is a compromise solution. Let us divide the German Navy, and then you can sink your half."
I want us to press on with missiles for several reasons, the obvious one being because of greater defence. Another is that I am anxious, as I think we must all be, to rid our countryside of the huge concrete runways. One of the advantages to be derived from these dreadful weapons—we have to be careful about claiming any advantages from them—is that they can pop out of holes. I would sooner the holes were in the frozen wastes of Greenland or the desert wastes of North Africa, but, wherever they are, holes in the ground are better than concrete runways. I look forward to that stage as representing one of the few advantages that we shall derive from such weapons.
I have stressed missiles because I believe that the pilot-minded Air Ministry has been inclined to neglect them. I will not go too far on this, because I said at the beginning of my speech that, of course, we need manned aircraft and manned fighters particularly, not only for operation in areas where there is no elaborate warning, control or radar system, but in case the enemy at any moment should develop a formidable jamming system which acted on our missiles so that they either went dashing off to the moon or came back to base. We must have the safeguard of some manned fighters, but where do we get our manned fighters? Surely we must admit that today we are years behind the United States in fighter development. Have they not

already hundreds of supersonic fighters? Surely the point is that with regard to fighters we must now look to our Allies.
In his speech the right hon. Gentleman went from weapons to manning, and I should like to join in what he said about Sir Leslie Hollinghurst's committees. They have certainly been of great help. I have suggested at one or two points that a factor contributing to the Government's failure to provide adequate weapons is the attachment to old ways of thinking of how one goes to war. In this case, the thinking is that it is piloted aircraft in which one goes to war. We have had this before in military history, and I will not labour it. For long the cavalry refused to believe that the horse was only a means of conveying a man with firepower. The cavalry got to the stage of thinking that the horse was an end in itself, and it refused to believe for a long time that there were other and more effective methods of conveying fire-power.
I have heard it said in many trials that I have followed during the last few months, "Well, it is a pilots' Air Force." Everyone knows that that was the saying used in the war by navigators and other aircrew. This time the phrase was used by people who were thinking of guided missiles.
It is our duty to try to strike some balance between the enthusiasts on either side, for neither side is completely right. We must think of this as a manning problem of the future. We must begin thinking today—I wonder if the Government are—of the relationship of the air officer to the ground officer. It has not been a real problem before, because all the men in high command have been former aircrew, and at any moment there were many men in the flying branches who were the heart and soul of the Royal Air Force, and they had considerable prestige.
What about the future when there are very few officers who fight in the air? A piece of jargon used in other debates in this House, on education and so on, is the phrase "parity of esteem." We have to meet the point that ultimately the press button officer will feel no more inferior to the few who fight in the air than the gunners have felt towards the infantry. We must think about this.
For instance, no brainy candidate for a commission in the Royal Artillery was rejected merely because his eyesight was not perfect. Can the Royal Air Force afford to refuse a brainy and otherwise outstanding candidate for press button warfare merely because his eyesight is not perfect? This is an example of manning problems on which we must have some information. I will take this one to the extreme to show the sort of adjustments that we shall have to make in manning the Royal Air Force of the future. When I was at the Air Ministry I saw a fascinating study of the relationship between the skill of a pilot and his early activity in the swimming baths at Cranwell. It said that if a young man who was a good swimmer had never on his own accord had the urge to high-dive and had, in fact, not done so, it was usually found afterwards that he was not a dashing and enthusiastic pilot. I can understand that. The abandon and zest necessary to do that showed certain qualities of the sort required for flying the aircraft of that time.
May we not be entering a period in which the best press-button warrior of the future may be the man who climbs to the top of the high-dive, calculates mentally the odds of a "belly-Hopper," and then turns and walks down the ladder? It will need considerable adjustment for us in relation to the phrase "parity of esteem." It will be difficult, but we have to recognise that with different instruments at different times, different methods of fighting require different qualities. It will be a big adjustment for most of us here to make but we must be prepared to make it. I think we are all agreed that the increasing importance of brains and education must be reflected in the after education of officers and men, apart from more staff training. There must be more staff training constantly throughout an officer's career.
I welcome the announcement that there is to be an increase in the period of training at Cranwell and a higher standard of entry. I also welcome the increase in the number of entrants to the Technical Branch through Henlow and the universities, but there is still a long way to go before we compare in this respect with the United States Air Force. One of the great advantages in the United

States system of the procurement of weapons is that in the United States Air Force are men from operational commands who can meet the engineers and designers at firms on nearly level terms at an early stage in developments. Unfortunately, that state of affairs does not exist in our Air Force today.
I want to refer to the Commonwealth strategic reserve in Malaya. I was interested to learn of it. I saw something of the work of the British Commonwealth Air Command in Japan. I wonder if we are applying the lessons that must have been learned there to the reserve in Malaya. Obviously, the administration of an integrated command is complicated, because of different laws. I remember how complicated it was in Japan, because there was nothing to prevent a United Kingdom based member of the Royal Air Force from marrying a Japanese girl, but, of course, the Australian Air Force man with the Australian racial policy was presented with a great problem.
The pay is also a problem. General MacArthur always put it as most important that in a closely integrated force pay and decorations should be the same. General Gruenther at S.H.A.P.E. does not feel it to be so important. He often cites the case of the Belgian major who happily works on the staff with less pay than that of the United States' staff sergeant outside his door. However, in a Commonwealth force, where there are the same ranks, the same language and the men are accustomed to the same institutions, it is important that there should not be different conditions. I wonder what the pay position is in the Commonwealth strategic reserve.
I have mentioned the disparity in wages between the Belgian and the American at S.H.A.P.E. We must recognise that, even in terms of the relationship between industrial wages and Service pay in the United States, the United States Air Force is higher paid than is the Royal Air Force. The new pay scale will help, but it does not meet two of the most important problems. It will help the bachelor, but it does not ease the problem of the education of children. The taxable education allowance for men in the Royal Air Force who face being moved about is nowhere near enough. I hope that the Government will look at that. It is particularly important. It is


all very well for the Secretary of State to say that they are trying to do something about turbulence, but we have to face the fact that even if turbulence is reduced to the minimum, it will still involve a great deal of travelling in the course of a man's Service life.
I was struck by the Secretary of State's reference to scientific manpower research. I am sorry to say that I feel something more is needed in the Air Force, not only scientific manpower research, but a good deal of improved human relations. We must not forget that the Air Force grew out of the amalgamation of two old Services. It has taken a great deal of time for people to recognise—and it is not yet fully recognised—that the average tradesman in the Royal Air Force is not like the old soldier or the old sailor of our other two Fighting Services, and it cannot be expected to be so.
There must be no atmosphere at all of the officer-man relationship which exists in the other two Services. We have this when we come to maintenance work on large stations. If the Air Council in a body were to visit one of the large engineering firms in Lincoln, or in any other engineering city, it would see how skilled men work on a job without being shouted at and pushed around. Skilled men resent being pushed around, and it is necessary, in the different structure of the Royal Air Force, that they should be treated differently from the way they were treated in the past. Shop stewards and managements at all levels know how to deal with skilled men, and they have no nonsense about the officer-man relationship. One man can do a job better, or has more responsibility, and so he gets more wages.
I remember after the war visiting Royal Air Force stations all over the world and, wherever I was told by a W.O. admin, or a group captain admin., that they were doing fine because they were getting back to pre-war, my heart sank and, in every case, I found that the station was one which had very little future. We must recognise that as the country becomes a social democracy—particularly in a skilled force like the Air Force—there must be a change in the mentality of officers and men.
Instances of stupidity come to me weekly if not daily. My constituency happens to be in the heart of a lot of

Air Force stations and people from other parts write to me. One case comes from Middleton St. George, and there may be other stations where this has also happened. Every airman, and probably every officer too, has been circulated with a Roneoed form on the contribution to the rebuilding of St. Clements Dane, the Royal Air Force church in the Strand. Everybody who does not want to contribute has to say, "I do not want to contribute to the rebuilding of this church" and has to sign his name. That is quite wrong. I hope that they will contribute, but it is impossible to expect that they should contract out like that, so that everyone in authority on the station can know that they do not want to contribute to the rebuilding of the church. That is a bad psychological approach to someone who may be a very worthy citizen and airman but who may be a Nonconformist, a Jew or a Roman Catholic who does not like contributing to Church of England churches.

Wing Commander Eric Rullus: Is it not a fact that this principle is known to hon. Members opposite?

Mr. de Freitas: It is a completely different point, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will give it the attention it deserves. The Air Force is trying to recruit people and is asking them to surrender certain things which they have in civil life. It is fundamentally wrong that if they do not want to contribute they should have to contract out in this way.
If these difficulties were removed and if the atmosphere of dealing with the Air Force were changed, we would get more recruits. More has to be done not only in looking for recruits and finding ways of attracting them, but of making certain that there is less need for recruits, first, by increased civilianisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has asked Questions about that. It is most important, because civilian overheads are very much lower. The Air Force does not have to worry about the teeth or morals of civilians. Civilians come, do the job and go.
One of the most serious complaints I have had in the last few months concerns 16 Maintenance Unit at Stafford. This is a Service-manned maintenance unit. The Lincolnshire branch of the National


Farmers' Union sent someone to the station, because it had been circulated with a catalogue offering 800 blankets for sale by auction. He travelled from Lincoln to Stafford and was told that the blankets were all mutilated—every one had been cut down the middle—so that they could not be used in the civil market and hurt the blanket trade. That is not only an example of waste but of inefficiency in failing to inform people that the blankets were mutilated and useless. I hope that this will be looked into.
The second point I have to stress in reducing the need for manpower is that there should be a reduction in ratio of aircrew to aircraft required; and, of course, by recalculating the number of officers required in missile forces of the future. The enormous cost of training a pilot should be remembered. The Air Force must work for the rapid elimination of National Service and have regard to the number of men in the Technical Training Command who do nothing but training.
I know that the accident rate is going down; and I was glad to hear the figures quoted this afternoon by the Secretary of State. They were most encouraging. But we must recognise that the general public is more concerned than hitherto about accidents which do occur, because when a large modern aircraft crashes on a town or a village, great damage is caused. It is most important that the Air Force should handle the public relations better than in the past. I have a case in mind which I will not quote now, because other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but it is a case which exactly meets that point. There the difficulty could have been settled by a better understanding of the point of view of the public. Inquiries should be held in public, except for those parts involving secret matter which ought to be dealt with in camera. This would promote greater confidence among the public.
I questioned earlier the policy of the Government in seeking to develop and produce missile aircraft which the Americans can do better than we can because of their greater experience. That is one of the most important matters to be considered.
The Secretary of State referred to the rôle of the Royal Air Force in maintain

ing peace. One of the consequences of the nuclear deterrent is that if it be possessed by both sides the power for peace passes back from the general to the politician. Never again can a general advise a statesman that if negotiation fails he can gain his point by a short war. No victory can be gained, since there can be no victory in a nuclear war. The statesman will be able to make political compromises supported by public opinion. That means, that power has returned to the politician, so we must educate the politician in two ways; first, politically, and then technically.
Last year, for the first time, Members of Parliament from all the N.A.T.O. countries met in Paris, and they will meet again this year. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was one of them. I believe that to be the first case in which military alliance has taken account of a political factor in the education of Members of Parliament. So far as technical education is concerned, we in this Parliament, like our Canadian colleagues, are in a difficulty, because constitutionally only Ministers have access to certain information. It is denied to their back-benchers and members of the Opposition. I can only hope that over the years we may find some solution to this difficulty.
Each one of us represents people who have contributed about £2½ million this year towards defence. Which one of us can say that we are getting value for money? We are asked to take very much on trust, and I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not trust the competence of the Government over defence. The Government live too much in the past. If I have spoken so much about the future, it is not because I have three little boys who know all about space travel and who think that Jet Morgan should take over the Air Council, but because the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of State for Air, and the Minister of Supply, did not speak enough about it.
The Air Force is faced with the terrible problem of having to be ready today and yet build for the future. I have made clear that the Government's handling of defence has been deplorable, but nothing I have said should be regarded in any way as a reflection on the men and women of the Air Force. We are grateful to those men and women who take on


what is often a thankless task by working in the Air Force so that we may be spared the disasters of war. I commend the thought to hon. Members that the chief task of the Air Force is to prevent war.

5.35 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: We enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and I agree with much of what he said. His speech was hardly at attack on the Government, and I propose to criticise one or two of the points which he made.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the perfection of equipment, and I agree with him. Too high a standard is set for many of the components put into an aircraft today, and not nearly enough attention is paid to standardisation. The hon. Gentleman also referred to eyesight. I consider that the required standard of eyesight for members of the Service could be relaxed when we are considering future requirements. I remember that twenty-seven years ago I was practically colour blind. The Royal Air Force medical service was using a coloured chart compiled by a Mr. Ishihara in Japan. It was difficult to learn this chart, but I sent to Japan for a copy and learned the various pages by heart and was thus able to fool the doctors for many years. I never had any difficulty in finding my way about at night, but at very low speeds. I commend my right hon. Friend to look into the matter of eyesight standards on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Lincoln.
The hon. Gentleman talked about tradition in the three Services, and I gained the impression that he thought the relations between officers and men in the Royal Air Force was not as good as in the Army and the Navy.

Mr. de Freitas: I did not mean to give that impression. I meant that the relationship between officers and men in the Royal Air Force today did not take sufficient account of the nature of the technical efficiency of the other ranks.

Air Commodore Harvey: I take the hon. Gentleman's point so far as the Navy is concerned. I do not agree about the Army, and I think that in the Royal Air Force there is a good relationship between the officers and the men. They play games together and, generally speak-

ing, the officers take a great interest in the men and their families.
The hon. Member for Lincoln also mentioned the question of education allowances. The Government have spent £60 million and have increased the pay of the Forces. We hope that will be an attraction, but the Government should have gone that much further by giving educational allowances which really mean something. To give £75 and £25 and then to tax those sums is not the way to get more men and to do away with the need for National Service. Not a great sum is involved, and I hope that the Government will look at this matter again and increase educational allowances.
I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on their appointments and to wish them well in their new posts. I hope that they will give the Air Force a lead from the Ministry—I will not say a political lead—which has not been evident for many year. I remember that before the war, in the time of Sir Samuel Hoare and Sir Philip Sassoon, the Air Force was put on the map. That atmosphere has been missing in recent years. Ministers should not be afraid to advertise themselves with the Air Force. They should count on public opinion in putting the Air Force forward as the No. 1 Service. It is the No. 1 Service today, and the sooner the Navy and the Army recognise that, the better it will be. That is not just a personal opinion; it is a fact.
The aircraft in the Service today are being flown as well as ever, if not better, and when we speak of the standard of the men, the quality, and so on, we must remember that the flying is of an extremely high standard. Those who saw the Royal Air Force formation at Farnborough last September must agree that the way the four Hunters were wheeled round the sky was nothing less than remarkable.
I do not think that the pay code will do all that is required. A boy who is thinking of joining the Royal Air Force today as a member of an aircrew at the age of seventeen or eighteen will say to himself, "What will my career be in twenty years' time, when I am thirty-eight years old?" It will then probably be a press-button Air Force. In all probability, if such a boy has not a science degree, he will not be flying. I am affected by this question,


because I have a son who is fourteen years of age. I do not want to put him off joining the Royal Air Force, but I have to ask myself whether he will have any real career as a general duties officer should he be commissioned in twenty years' time. I hope that the doubts about this matter which exist in the minds of boys and their parents can be put at rest.
I suggest that the Secretary of State smartens up the Service. Some of the officers today are not a great credit to this great Service. A few days ago I went along to pay my respects at the memorial service to Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Trenchard. If it had not been for him we should not have had a Royal Air Force. He had to fight hard to maintain it as a separate Service. Generals and admirals kept trying to get it away from him. That country owes him a great debt for what he did. At his memorial service, I thought that the turnout of many officers was quite deplorable—particularly in the case of the air marshals. Some of their greatcoats were the shabbiest things I have ever seen. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. If the senior officers do not turn themselves out well, what can we expect from junior officers and other ranks?

Mr. Wigg: In making his claim that the Royal Air Force is the premier Service, is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman also seeking to capture the "bull"?

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman must still be tired after the debate which we had last week dealing with the Army.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider introducing a summer unform. I know that we do not get many hot Summers, but last year's was quite hot. Many aircrews now fly overseas in a matter of a few hours and they require tropical uniform. I should think that something could be done on the lines adopted in the United States Air Force.
Much has been said about the Hunter. I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) last week. It was, in the main, a constructive speech, and was very much to the point, but I would remind hon. Members that the party opposite was in power when the Hunter's specification was written, including the provision of four 30-mm. guns.

The truth of the matter probably is that the aeroplane is over-gunned. We cannot just throw it away; it must be persevered with and put right. If hon. Members opposite had been in power now I do not suppose that the Hunter's guns would be firing any better. I hope that hon. Members opposite appreciate that point.
It is also a fact that 140 different types of aircraft have been built since the war. Who put out the specifications to the factories? I believe that the party opposite put out about 80 per cent. of them, and many of them failed. I do not wish to try to minimise the mistakes which this Government have made—because they have now been in office for four years—but we cannot cut off a programme of development and production overnight. I advise my right hon. Friend to be quite frank with the House in regard to the Hunter. Is he satisfied that the aeroplane would not do better with a later mark of Sapphire engine? All these considerations will have a bearing upon exports, sooner or later, unless we can prove that the aircraft is satisfactory from every point of view, and not merely from that of flying.
I am told that the Swift is now a remarkably fine aircraft. I know that some people are now regrettting their cancellation of contracts. I have heard that said by Service personnel. I should like to know the real facts about the Swift.
The time has now come to look ahead and to realise that in fifteen years' time, perhaps, the bomber or supersonic bomber, as we know it today, will no longer be in use.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member may cheer, but someone may invent something which will cost more money and cause more lives to be lost. We now have the V-bombers, and we shall probably have a supersonic bomber to follow, but after that it will be a question of guided missiles, mainly ground-to-ground. The point that is worrying me—and which was made by the hon. Member for Lincoln—is our present lack of scientists and physicists. The Government's provision for training men for technical schools, which was introduced last week and which will cost about £100 million, will help in this respect, but that


is a long term remedy, and we have to take immediate steps to remedy the situation in other ways.
I shall endeavour to explain how I think we should do so. First, I think that we are trying to do far too much in aviation. That has been standing out a mile for a long time. Something must be pruned. If it is, I think that we shall be able to improve efficiency in the long run. We have only a limited number of scientists, draughtsmen, aerodynamicists and development engineers, spread all over the country. There is now a black market in draughtsmen. Small firms are beginning to offer excellent inducements, including rent-free houses. This problem should be sorted out, because we shall not get the best out of industry if it is overloaded with development work.
The party opposite must accept its share of responsibility for getting us into this position. In its days it was far easier to get a development contract paid for by the Government than it is today. I have had some experience of this. I want to explain my interest in this matter. I am on the board of directors and deputy-chairman of a company which is making the Victor bomber. Many people tell me, "You are very late." Without giving away any secrets, I shall try to explain why we are late. I start at zero year. I am not giving any date, but zero year was obviously soon after the war.
In January of that year there was an invitation to (tender. In May, the tender was submitted, and in November there was an instruction to proceed for £50,000 worth of design work only. In those days the party opposite was in control. In the second year the company pressed for an instruction to proceed to construct. It was sufficiently satisfied with the design and was prepared to make the aircraft off the drawing board. Nothing happened in the second year. In the third year an instruction to proceed was issued for two prototypes only, for a very complicated aeroplane, with a very great risk of wrecking one. Unfortunately, one was wrecked, and all the development had to he done with the other one. Nothing happened in the fourth or fifth years.

Mr. de Freitas: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by "nothing happened"?

Air Commodore Harvey: No order was placed for a number of aircraft. In the sixth year there was an instruction to proceed in respect of a small order which might later be cancelled six months ahead. In the seventh year the order was confirmed. Later in that year a second order was discussed, and a contract was arrived at in mid-Summer.

Mr. de Freitas: rose—

Air Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with this history, I am quite prepared for him to ask questions when I have finished it. I am not allocating blame. I am giving figures and facts in order that the public may understand the difficulties which have to be faced in building aircraft. Bath Governments have their responsibilities in this matter; I am not excusing my hon. Friends any more than hon. Members opposite. Again, in the seventh year—in the time of this Government—there was a tender for a third order. At the end of the year the price was agreed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What was it?

Air Commodore Harvey: It has been agreed. If the hon. Member looks at his brief he will probably see what it was. In the eighth year a contract was issued. We are now negotiating for a fourth order.
How can a firm possibly keep its men happy and enable them to look to the future with some security when orders are issued in penny packets? One cannot possibly plan the production. It is necessary to order large castings, which are costly and complicated, and all the bits and pieces, in four driblets over about three years. It just is not good enough. My suspicion is that it is brought about by the Treasury. I am not blaming any of my right hon. Friends. The matter ought to be pressed home at the highest level by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence.
As far as the Victor is concerned, one aeroplane was lost during trials in Bedfordshire. The troubles have now been rectified. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and I flew well over 50,000 feet. I would say that the Victor today can fly higher than almost any aircraft. There are far too many modifications coming not only from the Ministry of Supply, but from


the Royal Air Force and from the firm itself. Somebody is required to watch over modifications and eventually to say, "This aeroplane has to be produced as it is, without any further modifications." I should have liked the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) to fly in the Victor. It would have been good for his education if he went up to 50,000 feet. Unfortunately, the idea was turned down by the Ministry of Supply. I do not know why.

Mr. Beswick: I appreciate that invitation, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reference to it might have been put in a rather different way. I think it was put in an offensive way. It would be good for the education of any Member of Parliament to fly at 50,000 feet.

Air Commodore Harvey: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think I wanted to be offensive. That is the last thing I intended. I did not think he had been over 50,000 feet. Any hon. Member would be educating himself in something new if he flew at a height of more than 50,000 feet. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Uxbridge was not able to go.
I would like the Government to be able to give Members of Parliament more information about military aircraft. We can read about many of these developments in American magazines week after week. The information gets out of this country, although hon. Members and the public are not allowed to know. I hope the Government will give us more information.
I now come to the question of whether the system of ordering aircraft by the Royal Air Force is the right one. I do not think it is. I am not criticising my hon. and right hon. Friends or the Ministry of Supply. Nobody has been more active and alive on these problems than the Ministry, and that goes for its senior civil servants, who are a very fine body of men. I pay my respects to them. The system is wrong. Customer and supplier are separated from each other because an intermediate body is acting for them. The system does not work. It was brought in by the Labour Government after the war.
The aircraft manufacturers do not like expressing this point of view because they would be criticising the hand that feeds

them. Many senior officers in the Royal Air Force do not like to do so because it means going into politics to some extent, and they have probably got far more sense than to do that. Nevertheless, something has to be done. The present system cannot go on.
I see only two alternatives. Either the Ministry of Defence must have increased legislative power to deal with ordering and allocating equipment, or the Air Ministry must take it over. I would prefer the Ministry of Defence to take the bold step of dealing with it, but rather than go on as we are today the Air Ministry should accept full responsibility. This method worked extremely well before the war. There was close touch between the Service and the manufacturers. Today the Royal Air Force have difficulties. There is an Air Chief Marshal at the Ministry of Supply. He is a very able man at his job, but that is not nearly enough, particularly when the Treasury is in the background delaying and querying everything that ought to be got on with.
A word about the construction of fighters. I do not think there is any secret today about our having at least twelve fighters in production or in development for the Royal Air Force and the Navy. There is no justification, considering the great shortage of technical men, of going on in this way. It would be far better to produce under licence an American or Canadian fighter. That is being done in Australia, where they bought the American rights of the Sabre, using a Rolls Royce engine. It is rather expensive, but they are doing an extremely good job.
If we did that, we should free several thousand qualified men, who are now producing fighters, for something more important on the electronic side of the business, air-to-air and ground-to-ground weapons. We must get busy on the electronic aspect; it is no use making modern bombers unless we can deliver them in the right places. We have to get more men out of the aircraft industry into the guided-missile section. I hope that we can develop co-operation with our American friends. In a recent Adjournment debate I discussed this question with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, and he assured me that there is co-operation. I know that,


but there is not nearly enough. Much of our present troubles have been brought about by lack of co-operation between the United States and Britain. I beg my right hon. Friend to treat this matter of the Royal Air Force as of the utmost urgency. It is the one Service which can save Britain.
Far too much money is being spent on both the other Services. I was at Gosport last week where I saw a number of modern ships cocooned and lying in the harbour. Even if there were a war there would not be men to man them. It is about time the Government dealt with their Lordships and got some sense into this matter. The Government should also prune the Army to modern size and get on with the main deterrent. We all agree that, by and large, that is the weapon which will come. We should do all in our power to see that this deterrent is made worthy of us at the earliest moment.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. William Paling: I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, so I shall be departing from the line followed very largely in the debate up to now. I agree with the closing remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). There are snags, even in the Royal Air Force, in the provision of machines, etc.
In his speech, the Minister addressed himself to the development of first-class equipment of all kinds. No one will disagree with the principle behind that part of the speech. The great complexity of the machines and equipment for the Royal Air Force means that we must have counterparts to use the equipment, newer machines, faster machines, different types of weapons and so on. Men in the Air Force must be kept up to scratch and up to standard to grapple with new complexities that are certain to arise. We need first-class men for a first-class Service.
In the similar debate last year, I quoted from a number of letters grumbles and grievances sent by long-term Service men. Some had been in the Service 16, 17 or 18 years and had put forward, not only in letters to me, but presumably to visiting committees on several occasions, the grumbles they

had about their terms of service and the way in which the organisation worked.
Since that time, I have had the pleasure—last September—of visiting the Second Tactical Air Force where I not only saw the work being done and the new machines and all that goes into the building up of the modern air force, but had the opportunity of speaking with some of the men who had written to me during the previous few months. More than anything else my visit emphasised in my mind that, while we are concentrating on building up the machines, we are rather losing touch with the organisation for looking after the machines when they are grounded.
We must realise that if we are to have machines which are capable of doing all that is planned for them we must have ground staffs capable of doing the maintenance work. That means having men not only capable but contented. The Department now has a number of letters which reinforce those which I quoted last year. A modern air force requires modern ideas and modern organisation. Not only must the ground staff be well trained but they must become conversant very quickly with the new types of equipment, so that they can deal at once with the new machines and equipment coming into use.
I wonder whether the organisation dealing with our ground staff, especially those men who are serving over a period of years, is up to scratch, or whether it is not a little outdated. Some of the men complain that they have been trying to get things going for a number of years but have not got very far. I do not think that the new pay scales will influence the grumbles that I have heard expressed on many occasions. One hears of non-commissioned officers—particularly fitters and the technical people generally—who have reached a certain stage of qualification and can get no further.
I have here the copy of a letter similar to many that have been sent recommending various men for a higher grade of category. One paragraph reads:
He has had a fine career so far and his long period in the various categories of flight sergeant is because of his rapid promotion to temporary flight sergeant during the war. He is, however, at present 322 on the roster for acting warrant officer and there is, thus, no chance whatever of his early advancement other than by doing a fiddle' and letting him jump all those ahead of him—which, of course, we could not…do.


The attainment of a certain standard of qualification should entitle such men to some advancement. I agree that we cannot immediately advance some 322 men—according to this letter—to the higher rank of warrant officer, but in order to get more contentment is it not possible for the organisation to give some reward for ability reached in the course of work? We know that it is not as easy as some may think to give promotion, but when there are all these non-commissioned officers who have been trained, who are efficient and who have to deal with the day-to-day details of whatever may arise on an airfield, surely we can give them some inducement to do the job, and to keep them in a frame of mind happier than that which some of the letters seem to indicate.
When men with sixteen years' service say that they are no longer interested in the Service there must be something wrong somewhere. It is far better that these men should be seen and that they should be able to express themselves openly. The evidence should be sifted, and if there is anything in it we should find some sort of organisation that can satisfy the men's complaints. According to that letter which I have quoted, the chances of promotion are very remote indeed. That is only one letter of very many, all similar in character and every one from men who have served a long period in the Royal Air Force.
The Minister referred to wastage of manpower, and that is something which affects the new recruit particularly. The method of training is outmoded. We are a little behind there. We are spending too much time on technicalities, as though we were putting the recruits through a technical school, instead of getting them on the job as quickly as possible and training them by actual contact with it. In one case a lad is expected to know the content of steel and so on; he is expected to know how to file down a piece of steel to the "umpteenth" part of an inch, and spends weeks or months learning that process. I should imagine that most of the parts of our aeroplanes or of our airfield equipment are more or less standardised and that not once in a thousand times is a man required to spend much time filing down a bolt of a nut or a piece of steel to a particular thickness.
The object of training is, in the first instance, to create an interest. In the National Service man, too, an interest must be created if we are to keep him in the Air Force. The vital importance of training is to see that the recruit acquires that interest as quickly as possible, so that he feels that there is something worth while in the Air Force and that he can enjoy being in it and doing the job. Nevertheless, when I was in Germany it was most apparent that there were many who are looking forward only to being demobbed.
There is something wrong if a young fellow cannot be so trained as to have some interest in his job, but let me quote an example—though this time not from Germany. A wood turner, a blacksmith and a silversmith—all three brought in as National Service men—wished while in the Service to follow some trade as closely akin as possible to their civilian work. They were all made assistant cooks. I am not allowed to use here the language which they used to describe their appointments. However, I think that we can get over such difficulties and snags.
Education is another subject. With our married quarters system in Germany—where the wives and families are living over there—the educational system seems to work extremely well up to about 11 years of age. After the children reach the age of 11 there is a great deal of uncertainty. In many instances the men, and especially the officers, have to make their own arrangements. The men often have to let their children be boarded at a school and pay for equipment and so on, which is a very expensive item.
I wonder whether any arrangements have been made during the last twelve months between the two Services—this applies to the Army as well—to cater for the children who are over 11 years of age so that they may continue their education as if they were at home. The Secretary of State for War made an announcement to the effect that it was intended to raise the level of education there to the standard of the London County Council education scheme. I wonder how far we have got with that scheme in respect of the two Services, and particularly the Royal Air Force. Parents are really worried about the problem.
I saw one of the schools catering for children up to the age of 11, and I could not wish for anything better. After a long conversation with the headmaster I was satisfied that a good job of work was being done. However, it is no good just to have a good job of work done until the child reaches the age of 11 and then for there to be no proper arrangements for it to continue its education. I hope the Minister will pay some attention to this point.
I promised when I was in Germany to raise the question of living in Germany. The N.A.A.F.I. does not supply everything, and apparently it does not meet the needs of the ladies in respect of dresses, clothes for their children and ether things. If the women have to go into the German shops they find that the £ is worth only about 11s. 8d. This is a real grievance. I wonder whether some better organisation can be provided so that the families can be supplied with boots and shoes, clothing and the many other requirements of every-day life when they are living at foreign stations.
These questions are worthy of consideration. If some attention can be paid to them, no matter how trivial they may sound, I am certain that it will be to the good in the organisation of the Royal Air Force. If alongside the developments which are being made in modernising the Royal Air Force we can have a contented staff to deal with all the modern plant that we are assembling, I am sure that we shall be going a long way towards having a successful Royal Air Force.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), for he has made a most important point about the welfare of ground crews. Anyone who has any experience of dealing with them knows full well how important it is that they should be well cared for. I am sure that no one here will dispute what the hon. Gentleman said about that.
The opening speeches today, like many of the speeches we listened to in the defence debate last week, reflect something of the concern which is felt in many parts of the House at the development of our Service aircraft. The concern has not suddenly arisen. It has been with us for a long time, and it has been with us

under successive Governments. It has arisen since we have begun to meet the problems of near-sonic and supersonic flight.
I wish, therefore, to say a word or two about the system which has been pursued since the war by successive Governments for procuring and developing our military aircraft. Here I should like to say how much I agreed with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). It is a system which for a decade has remained largely unaltered. Variations, adjustments and improvements have been made here and there, but the general pattern and structure has remained the same.
When I look at the record of the last ten years and the last seven debates on the Air Estimates, in which I have taken part, I can hardly say that it has been a noticeably successful system. In one particular it has put us at a great disadvantage. The Royal Air Force has, in my view, always been too remote from the manufacturer. In the late war it used to be a commonplace to speak of the superiority of British aircraft over those of the Germans. In some instances, and at certain times of the war, that was probably true, but at other times it was unquestionably false. Indeed, by the end of the war the Germans had taken the lead from us in the design and development of aircraft. If the war had lasted another six months or a year, the consequences of that lead might have been very serious for us indeed.
Sir, I have always thought it significant that after the war the United States went to such pains to probe and investigate the methods used by the Germans for procuring and developing their military aircraft. The Americans examined and re-examined the German system. Then they subjected their own system to the most intensive scrutiny. The result was a re-organisation of their own methods in which they were not afraid to embody the best of the German principles.
I am not one who thinks that everything the Americans do in this field is necessarily right—they have had their failures and we are apt to forget that—nor yet do I disregard the unquestioned advantage which they hold over us in the measure and extent of their resources. I do say, however, that we should be


foolish indeed if we thought that money, materials and labour alone were responsible for the speed with which they are now developing their military aircraft, particularly the advanced "Century series" fighters. I think we should look very carefully at their system, as they looked unashamedly at the German methods after the war. I believe that there are several lessons for us to learn there.
One of the most important recommendations of the Ridenour Committee which was set up to probe the Americans' own organisation, was that the user commands of the United States Air Force should be brought into much closer contact with the United States' manufacturers. That is a most important point. As a result of it there was established, on 21st October, 1950, within the United States Air Force, the Air Research and Development Command. The purpose of that Command, as I understand it, is to act as a direct link between the United States aircraft industry, the Air Staff and the user commands. We have nothing like it in the Royal Air Force, and I believe that is a pity.
The task of A.R.D.C. is to sponsor, supervise and co-ordinate the development of new equipment and new devices for the conduct and support of air warfare. The policy of the command is to represent—this is very important—United States Air Force problems directly and squarely to industry and to maintain constant contact with the American manufacturers throughout the stages of development. What that organisation does, in effect, is to enable the United States Air Force to control its own destiny in immediate contact with industry. I believe that that is precisely what we want here today.
A new project is started. What is called "a project team" is set up by the command under a lieutenant-colonel who has under him a staff of highly trained specialist officers. That unit maintains direct contact with the project right throughout its life from the earlier stages of development until it reaches production; and even then the team still stays with the project. During that time the unit is constantly visiting the aircraft companies concerned and maintaining first-hand contact with the Pentagon, the Air Staff and user commands.
Sir, I do not say that the United States achievements in providing military aircraft are alone the result of a system rather than the resources which support it; nor yet do I say that the organisation established there would, as it stands, necessarily be ideal here. But I do think it has been sufficiently successful for us to examine it in detail to see whether its primary principles may have some application for the Royal Air Force.
To my mind it is not enough to send out to the United States one or two representatives of the Ministry of Supply or the Air Ministry. It is not enough just to send out the Controller of Aircraft at the Ministry of Supply, although he is an able man, or the R.A.F. Principal Director of A.R.D. merely for a week and to make a report. What is needed, in my submission, is the establishment of an impartial representative committee drawn largely from British industry which could examine precisely and in detail American production methods and the system that the United States Air Force employs in developing and procuring its military aircraft. I should be very surprised if the United States would not co-operate in giving facilities for such an investigation. This would at least enable us to make an unbiased comparison between the American system and our own which would, of course, also come under the purview of the Committee which I have in mind.
The United States has developed the F 100 and is developing the F 102 and F 104 in substantially less time than it has taken the Royal Air Force to get the Hunter and the Javelin into operational service. Sir, it seems to me to be worth while to find out why.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I hope that the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) will forgive me if I do not follow the points which he has made in his extremely interesting speech. It was a technical speech and I am not a technician; therefore, I do not intend to develop the arguments that the hon. Member put forward, except to say that, as a non-technical man, I found the speech extremely interesting. I know—by the attention which they paid—that many hon. Members with great technical knowledge found the speech of great value.
I am concerned with the normal routine National Service men, the bulk of the manpower used by the Royal Air Forces. I confess that my interest in the doings of National Service men commenced last year when one of my constituents drew to my attention his difficulties in having been forced to be a batman—I should correct that, having volunteered to be a batman—in the Air Forces, and having to undertake many unsavoury duties, culminating in being forced to dress as a flunkey at a social gathering of the Air Force. That occasioned considerable interest at the time, but I have found since by correspondence—I have a mass of letters with me—that, although it may have been regarded as an exceptional matter which created exceptional interest, it was in fact a symptom of something going on in the Air Force.
This being the first occasion we have had on which to debate the matter, I do not therefore apologise for returning to what may be regarded in certain circumstances as ancient matters. I am not at all sure from the information I have that these malpractices and similar abuses in the Air Force do not continue today. In these days of inflation, when almost the whole attention of the country is devoted to our balance of payments problem and the pressing economic situation, the Services have a very special responsibility to justify the use of the money which Parliament allocates to them each year. No one decries the need for defence, at least I do not, but the Services are taking such a colossal proportion of the national income that if in any way they abuse it, they must assume great responsibility for part of the inflationary pressure and the economic crisis which exists at present.
I agree with hon. Members who have spoken earlier that we need integration. I would not stop, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), at integration of the Air Force and the Navy. In the event of a war being fought with hydrogen and atomic weapons I think we must go a great deal further and have integration of the three Services under the Ministry of Defence. I shall not follow up that argument, but I believe that is imperative if we are to have the maximum economy in the money the nation is spending. Therefore, I start by asking the Under-Secretary, what does the

Air Force intend to do about the R.A.F. Regiment?
The R.A.F. Regiment, I believe, has not been mentioned so far in this debate, but it is using up a considerable amount of the money in the Estimates we are considering. It would seem that the duties of the R.A.F. Regiment would in future lend themselves to complete co-ordination with the Army. That is an added reason why we should give serious consideration to co-ordination of the three, rather than two, of the Services, which has been advocated today and last week in the defence debate.
In the Air Force there are, and have been for some time, growing complaints of an abuse of the use of manpower. The question of the use of batmen is a serious one, as was shown by the fact that when I tabled Questions on this subject last year the Government gave an undertaking to the House that in future no man would be asked to spend his time as a batman in the R.A.F. unless, in the first place, he signed a written document to the effect that he agreed to do so. I wonder why this medieval system of social priorities to officers should continue at all. There was great substance in the complaint I took up some time ago. I had signed complaints from many men at one camp, and from others in other camps, which I did not pursue because I did not want to make the matter too complicated. It may be remembered that the hon. Gentleman who previously was Under-Secretary of State for Air, in replying to me in a letter on that occasion said:
 The service expected from a batman employed in married quarters is the service due to an officer in the Royal Air Force in his capacity as an officer.
That seems a most out-moded view. I do not agree at all that an officer, because he is an officer, has to be given a social status and a conglomeration of waiters and batmen. He could never expect anything like those conditions in civilian life; and certainly the country cannot afford it today.
Many of the men to whom I spoke had had but one month's training. I had letter after letter from men called up to do two years' National Service, who were placed in the R.A.F. and, after one month's training, they had no training for the rest of the period of one year and eleven months. Instead they were asked to do batman's duties, which not only


included looking after the officer—for which there may be some good reason—but looking after the officer's wife and family, cleaning out dog kennels, fetching coal, taking children to school and even looking after relatives when they came to stay in married quarters in R.A.F. stations.
These are the complaints I have had submitted to me. I am not at all satisfied that in present-day circumstances the continued use of men in this manner is justified. I should like the Minister to say whether the three-man inquiry into the use of manpower in the Army, announced last week by the Secretary of State for War, will have its counterpart in the Air Force and whether there is to be a similar inquiry about how National Service men spend their time.
Not only have I had complaints from Service men about the stupidity of the tasks that they are called upon to undertake and about their lack of training in the Air Force, but since these matters were raised, I find that something similar obtains with civilian batmen. I have in my possession a classic order headed "Conditions of Employment" from the Commanding Officer of the R.A.F. Station at Debden, issued last October to civilian batmen who were employed at the princely wage of £6 15s. a week. I am told that some of them have been in difficulty because they have joined a trade union. The joining of a union in these circumstances was not altogether acceptable. Some of the men, I understand, are as old as 74 years of age.
I want to read part of these orders of the day to the House, because we are all anxious to increase the use of civilian labour in the Air Force where this can be done to help to dispense with the necessity for National Service. Dealing with batmen, the commanding officer said:
 Broadly speaking, you will be expected to do personal valeting for the officer (but not for his wife), and cleaning of the officer's bedroom, the living accommodation, bathroom, kitchen and lavatory.
When, as is revealed on page 10 of the Estimates, we are spending £12 million on marriage allowances, I wonder why officers when living with their wives must have people, either National Service men or civilians, to clean out bedrooms, kitchens, lavatories and the like.
The commanding officer adds:
Where there are coal fires, you could be asked to make up fires and replenish fuel, and to stoke boilers during the day.
It is quite permissible, therefore, at Government expense, for civilians to be employed to stoke fires for officers' wives. This is absolute nonsense.
According to paragraph 3,
 These are legitimate duties, as part of your terms of service. However, you may, if you wish, come to a mutual understanding with the officer concerned to forgo certain duties and undertake others. (For instance, you might agree to do some washing-up in place of cleaning the bathroom, or something of that sort.)
This is an order of the day and not in "Comic Cuts." It continues:
 In view of this, I urge you to seek an interview with the officer(s) employing you as soon as possible, so as to agree exactly on what your duties should be. In this connection it is pointed out that the officer is the only person entitled to give you orders; although obviously, it will be more convenient for all if you will accept instructions regarding daily detail from the mistress of the house, provided they come within the terms agreed with the officer.
In fairness to the commanding officer who issued this masterpiece, I must point out that he then states:
 You are not obliged to accept written orders from the lady of the house.
Paragraph 4 deals with tips. It says:
 With regard to 'tins': you will realise that there is no obligation on the part of the officer to give you money over and above your wages. However, it is customary for officers to give a small monthly token acknowledgment of willing service. These will vary according to the service given, but I consider it reasonable for a batman who has given good service to get about 30s. extra a month.
So we are having a scale of tips laid down. Willing service is worth 30s. a month. The notice continues:
 Thus a batman who was employed in two houses might expect to get a 15s. tip from each; in three houses, about 10s. from each. I must insist, however, that there is no compulsion about this, and that it will depend on the good relations between you and your employer, and the service you provide.
And so it goes on. I do not want to read the remaining two paragraphs.
That the commanding officer of an R.A.F. station should issue an order of the day in those terms to civilian batmen in the year 1955 is fatuous and fantastic and I hope that the Under-Secretary will investigate it. A great deal has been said


in criticism of the Navy in recent debates, but one thing to its credit is that it does not allow the system of officers' batmen—

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): It would be helpful to know exactly what the hon. Member is after. He has mentioned certain duties which batmen have to perform in married quarters. They are identical with the duties that batmen have to perform in officers' quarters where unmarried officers live. Does the hon. Member suggest that duties such as cleaning out the bathroom, brushing the stairs, and this, that and the other in the officers' mess, should not be done by batmen? If so, who should do them? Or is the hon. Member saying that a married officer should not have the same facilities of a batman as an unmarried officer?

Mr. Howell: As, according to the Estimates, the nation is paying considerably—to the tune of £12,515,000 next year—for the benefit of the man who lives with his wife upon the station, the wife of an officer should do what the wife of a managing director, foreman, administrative officer or Member of Parliament has to do: she ought to do a little of her own work. It is indefensible for the Minister to intervene in that way. There may well be occasion for assistance in messes where single officers live, but there is no case for it whatever in married quarters. It should cease forthwith.
This nonsense applies not only to the ordinary ranks in the R.A.F. It applies also in the officers' mess. All these things are examples of outmoded social class distinctions which, one would have thought, we were now trying to get rid of.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: It is worse in Russia.

Mr. Howell: That is a particularly innocuous intervention, since the whole of our system of democracy is meant to show that we have a much better system than Russia.
Another of my letters is from a sergeant in the Royal Air Force. His great objection is to being forced to spend a considerable part of his time acting as a bar tender in the officers' mess. He is doing service as a bar tender in the

officers' mess where drinks are sold, he says, cheaper than they can be obtained outside. I do not complain about that; but he says that this is a compulsory duty and that the only way in his camp—and he writes from a camp—in which he can obtain exemption from acting as mess caterer, which is the official title of a bar tender in the R.A.F., is to say that he is a Quaker.
When men join the R.A.F. they are asked, "What is your religion?" and most of them say, "Church of England." I think that it should be generally known that if they are to become sergeants and wish to obtain exemption from this sort of duty they must in future join the religious order of the Society of Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If they were Quakers they would not be there.

Mr. Howell: It is quite pertinent for my hon. Friend to say that if they were Quakers they would not be there. The trouble in this case is that the commanding officer has not chosen that particular religious denomination. It appears clear that all these things, involving the officers' mess, the sergeants' mess, and the ridiculous duties of batmen, need investigation in much more detail than they have been examined hitherto.
On the whole, the Government are to be congratulated on the new Service pay awards recently announced. We on this side of the House hope that they will be an encouragement to recruiting, so that the Government can end National Service at an early date. Most of us on this side are convinced that National Service could be reduced immediately. In the R.A.F. it would appear that there is even less need for National Service men than in the Army.
There are one or two suggestions which I should like to make. I believe that one of the greatest difficulties in the way of getting men to join the R.A.F. is that they cannot get out of the Service. That may sound paradoxical, but in fact if we say to a man who joins up that the conditions are such that, except in circumstances in which he can buy himself out, he will not be allowed out until he has completed his term of service, we are not likely to get people to join the Service in the first place. I suggest that, while a fixed period of service should be


retained, men should be able to opt out after giving, say, six months' notice that they wish to leave the R.A.F.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Fourteen days.

Mr. Howell: We might go a little beyond that. The fact that when people enter the Service they are committed to serve for several years is, I think, one of the greatest deterrents to recruiting. If people tell me that this would endanger our system of defence, I would say that perhaps the greatest part of the defence of our country lies in the police service, yet this system has operated in that service for 120 years, and we do not have a mass exodus of people from the police force. I hope that this suggestion may be given some consideration by the Minister.
If people thought that when they joined the Air Force they could get out in a reasonable time if they wished to do so, we should overcome one of the major obstacles to recruiting. I also think that Service personnel, notwithstanding the recent increases in pay, should have more say in the fixing of rates of pay in the Armed Forces, especially in the Air Force. There was some trouble in the police force in about 1926 when the police force had a trade union. I am not advocating a trade union for R.A.F. personnel, although personally I would have no fundamental objection to it. However, I think that we should have something in the R.A.F. on the lines of the police federation whereby welfare, pay and conditions could be subjected to constant review by people serving in the Air Force and whereby there would be the right for people on the job to have some joint consultation. Is it right that in 1956 the only people in this country who have no sort of joint consultation are members of Her Majesty's Forces?

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: And Members of Parliament.

Mr. Howell: That relevant intervention may not be strictly accurate. I believe that there is room for joint consultation over Parliamentary salaries, but for strategic reasons it does not happen.
On the question of leave, I think that we must treat people in the Forces with more imagination. Hitherto, leave has always been regarded as a privilege. One

of the greatest stumbling-blocks psychologically when we want to get people into the R.A.F. is to tell them that they can have things only as privileges instead of as rights. We cannot push people around these days. We are living in the twentieth century and, apart from impending industrial difficulties, we hope to have full employment for a considerable time. It was against that background that the Government introduced their proposals. Leave should be given as a right and not as a privilege. I hope that these suggestions will be considered by the Government.
Finally, I want to refer to a matter which was brought to my notice yesterday and which I have not had time to consider in detail. It involves the problem of wastage in the R.A.F. It is about the removal of the R.A.F. unit at Church Lawford in Warwickshire—I apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation if it is in his division, but no doubt he will be able to acquaint the Under-Secretary with the details if I am not correct—to the R.A.F. station at Wellesbourne. I am told that the scheme for building houses at the R.A.F. station at Church Lawford—which is costing several hundreds of thousand pounds—has suddenly been stopped and the whole operation is being moved to the other R.A.F. station.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned a case in my constituency, perhaps he will allow me to say that I know about it. This was a matter on which I was approached, and I immediately got into touch with the Under-Secretary. I should like the hon. Gentleman to know that the case is being investigated. I am wholly satisfied that there is necessity for the move which is taking place and for the building of houses at Wellesbourne. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a matter which I should have been able to look after in my own constituency had there been anything to be said about it.

Mr. Howell: I am obliged for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is, however, a member of the Government and may be more easily satisfied on the matter. This is a matter in which public


money is being spent and I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member has intervened. We are, however, entitled to ask why several hundred thousand pounds have been spent on one R.A.F. station and why, in the middle of the work, there has been this change of policy. Why could not there have been more foresight? The extravagance of the Armed Forces in manpower and in money, even in small matters, is of great concern to the House and the country, in view of the economic situation. We cannot afford to have waste. We cannot afford lack of foresight on the part of Government Departments, even if they are Service Departments.
If we must cut inflationary expenditure, the Government must properly account for every pound spent on the Services. There is a continuing waste in the use of manpower in the manner which I have already described to the House. I could have gone on al great length and produced a mass of letters giving examples of men who have gone into the Forces, have not been trained and have wasted their time on skivvying and doing batmen's jobs and the like.
Although I appreciate that it is of the utmost importance that we should discuss the technical aspects of the Air Force, such as whether the Hunter is or is not efficient and whether we are to have aeroplanes capable of carrying guided missiles, nevertheless the general question of the period of National Service and the proper utilisation of manpower in the Royal Air Force are also matters of great concern not only to the nation but to the individuals involved.
I took up with the Under-Secretary of State for Air the other day the case of a man in my own constituency who opted to join the Royal Air Force. He was a qualified man. He had stayed on at work until he was twenty-one and obtained a certificate and he hoped to become an electrician in the Air Force. I was told by the Under-Secretary that there were about twenty vacancies and fifty-six applications for jobs as electricians, and that man is doing no more than labouring in the Royal Air Force. Why should a man of that kind, whom the country so badly needs, be encouraged to go into the Air Force and then be put on labouring jobs? Why should there be a case such as the one which has already been mentioned

in the debate of three men being put to do cook's work, the last job of work they would have been doing in civilian employment?
Until the Royal Air Force and the other Services cease to put square pegs in round holes they will not have the confidence of the public and will not solve their recruitment problems. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will extend to the Air Force the inquiry which the Minister of Defence announced last week, in order that Parliament and the country may cease to hear of these ridiculous examples of men being asked to do jobs for which they are wholly unsuited and which the nation looks upon with complete distaste.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I hope in a few minutes, and certainly not in as long a time as has been taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell), to address myself to a number of matters mostly concerning economy. Before I do that, I should like to take up a point raised by the Minister of Supply during the defence debate and which has been mentioned again today by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). It is the question of the speed of development. The hon. Member for Lincoln quoted my right hon. Friend as saying that there should be more reward for success in development and more penalties for failure. This presumably covers not only the development of aeroplanes and engines, but of ancillary equipment such as the hydraulic, electrical, electronic and armament systems of aircraft.
If I address myself to this problem, it is only because I have some experience of it. I ask my right hon. Friend to examine the profit margins for research and development which industry now receives under the very strictly controlled costing arrangements of his Ministry. At the moment, the profit margin for development work may be as low as 4½ per cent., and that is not adequate to cover capital equipment and laboratories and frequently providing expanded factory facilities. All these things cannot possibly be done on a profit margin of 4½ per cent.
As our defence programme stands, some development will yield no production whatsoever, Some will yield a very small amount of production. and only a very small amount of development will


yield large-scale production comparable with the scale in the last war. That being so, it is important to industry that there should be adequate rewards for development, otherwise highly-skilled engineers and project leaders are tied up on work which leads to little or no production. Therefore, I ask the Minister to examine this point.
On this occasion—the first in the six years on which I have spoken in the debate on the Air Estimates—I apologise to the House for the fact that I shall not be able to remain here until the debate is wound up. I am afraid that it is a discourtesy, but I am bound by a speaking engagement of six months ago which I cannot cancel at such short notice. I shall mainly concentrate my remarks on economy which might be made within the Royal Air Force. Even for this year, when this Service gets a smaller slice of the whole, £479 million is being spent on the Royal Air Force.
I want to concentrate first on the Air Force in relation to a hot war and the problem of equipping it; secondly, on its function in a cold war or limited war, and, thirdly, on the manning of the Air Force and questions of pay and allowances for its personnel. I believe that the whole House welcomes the announcement made by the Minister of Supply that the Government are going to prune a number of projects. We need to reorganise the method by which the remaining projects which we undertake are ordered and supplied. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) have made constructive suggestions in this respect.
I find that operational requirements as laid down by the Air Ministry tend to be too ambitious. The staff officers working at them do not wish to make any mistake and so they produce ambitious operational requirements which cost a great deal and which very often arrive too late. I believe that in the past—and this was particularly the case five years ago—there was a lack of liaison between the Air Ministry which frames the requirement, the operational command which has the experience and has to use the equipment, the Ministry of Supply and, finally, the manufacturer concerned. That was a long

chain and the manufacturer was strongly discouraged from talking to the operational command and to the Air Ministry.
Matters have improved in recent years. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and his predecessor have broken down the resentment which used to exist. There should be no resentment whatsoever. The Ministry of Supply is only a co-ordinating and servicing Department supplying the needs of the Services. Manufacturers should be encouraged, as they are in the United States, to get as close as possible to the flying personnel and those who have personal experience of the equipment which has been ordered.
When an operational requirement reaches the manufacturer through the Ministry of Supply, the manufacturer often finds that he cannot meet the requirement in toto, but can perhaps meet 95 per cent. of it much more quickly and cheaply than if he attempted to meet it all. A reverse inquiry is then put to the Ministry of Supply which is informed of the position. The inquiry is passed on to the Air Ministry, then to the operational command and then back again through a whole lot of people who must interpret technical information and opinion. These difficulties can be broken down only if the user and the manufacturer are closer together throughout the period of development and design. I hope that henceforth we shall see that happening more and more.
It was once wisely said by a United States wag that in manufacturing armament equipment one needed to "simplificate" and add lightness. Certainly we need to "simplificate" much of the equipment ordered by our Air Force. Frills must be cut out, and not only frills but the constant modifications which pile up afterwards and which further delay our programmes.
For instance, I noticed an inquiry which went out from the Ministry of Supply recently for a piece of ground equipment. It was stated that this would be required to operate in an ambient temperature of 131° Fahrenheit. I wondered how often that temperature would be encountered, because the equipment would be more complicated and much more expensive, as well as more difficult to operate, in such a temperature. I sometimes feel that people find out the hottest temperature in any part


of the world and then say that they must have all equipment able to operate in the middle of the Sahara Desert. We cannot afford to have equipment which is more luxurious and which has more frills than are absolutely necessary for meeting our commitments in this country and overseas.
I want to make three suggestions as to where the Ministry of Supply might look for economics. First, there is the question of specifications. I have raised this before, but I think that the Ministry is still a little too ambitious and rigorous. If the specifications of some equipment could be relaxed it could be provided more quickly and more cheaply.
Secondly, cannot the Minister consider the amount of detailed drawing information which the Ministry demands from the manufacturers? One piece of equipment with which I am concerned and of which only twelve pieces are required needs 18,000 detailed drawings in triplicate supplied to the highest standards. Anyone working in industry will bear me out when I say that there is the gravest shortage of draughtsmen. We have only to pick up any of the daily papers to see the large number of advertisements for them. Draughtsmen represent the bottleneck in getting our equipment quickly, so that if the standard of drawings can be relaxed, this should be done.
I believe that these regulations were drawn up when it was envisaged that 10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 of each piece of equipment would be required and when shadow factories were needed. That would be out of date in a nuclear war which perhaps we would start and finish with the equipment existing at the beginning. It is unrealistic to think that we would have time to put shadow factories into production, and therefore it would be wasteful to have large numbers of detailed drawings distributed over the country. Since this is a complicated matter, I suggest that my right hon. Friend should set up a committee with a knowledge of industry, as well as of his own Ministry, to discover how time and money could be saved in this respect.
Thirdly, could the Minister examine the accounting methods used in his own development establishments? No one wants to deny the development engineers good equipment, but I have it on first-

rate authority that it is easy to buy new equipment costing several thousands of pounds, and one wonders whether in a period of economy requests for such equipment should not be carefully examined at a high level.
We have said that we will prune our projects and I want to underline the corollary of that. It seems that we are going to back some bad horses in some races. When I say "races," I mean that, presumably, we shall have one supersonic fighter, one supersonic bomber, one ground-to-air missile and one air-to-ground missile. I am afraid that some of those projects will not be successful, therefore we must face the fact that we are taking a chance. It is a calculated risk and we shall have to find our designs from overseas and from our Allies. After all, we now have Allies with the most advanced equipment in the world.
We have built up a tremendous aircraft manufacturing industry in Canada and a very able one in Australia, so if we find that our own designs are not coming forward as quickly as they should, we can look not only to our Commonwealth but also to our N.A.T.O. Allies. This applies also to Sweden, which is far advanced in this respect, and also to the United States. I hope there will not be any suggestion that prestige forbids this approach, because where defence is concerned prestige must come after the need for armaments of the best standard and design, wherever they may come from.
Now a word about the R.A.F. in a limited war, In opening the debate my right hon. Friend said that in a cold or limited war—

Mr. de Freitas: A cold war:

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, in a cold war, the more old-fashioned aircraft was more successful in some ways. I endorse that view strongly and I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are looking ahead sufficiently, and whether we have some old-fashioned aircraft which would serve us in a cold war that may last ten or twenty years. We do not want to use Hunters in, say, Malaya or Kenya. In a cold war we want to use slow, simple and reliable aircraft which can be easily maintained and which can use short runways.
I should have thought that in a cold war the job of the Air Force would involve tactical air transport, long range


air transport, photographic reconnaisance, tactical support of our troops on the ground and, particularly, psychological support—that is to say, leaflets, loudspeaker work and other weapons. I wonder very much whether we have ordered any aircraft which could carry out these roles in the type of work which may be with us for a long time to come. I am not asking that a new aircraft should be developed because I am sure there must be one somewhere in the world designed for that purpose.
It would be wrong in an Air Estimates debate not to mention the personnel in our Air Force. The latest figures I have give me some alarm at the growing number of civilians commanded by the military. I am not talking about civilians under a civilian contractor, but about civilians under the military. The latest figures show 162,000 male Regulars in the Air Force, 52,000 National Service men—that is about one-third—and 115,000 civilians directly employed by the Air Ministry. This shows that the civilians are more than double the number of National Service men.
We were all delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend has appointed a scientific committee to look into the utilisation of manpower. I hope that the terms of reference of this Committee will be extended so that it can consider the manner in which civilians are used, perhaps even covering the batman mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints. There is room for improvement for productivity in that respect.
Lastly, may I repeat what I said last year? I say it again because I have had extra evidence since then. I am convinced that civilian contractors could run some of our home units and perhaps Western European units far more effectively and cheaply than could the Air Force. I refer particularly to units in Maintenance Command, Technical Training Command and Flying Training Command. Hon. Members who read the Economist know about Parkinson's Law. I am afraid that civilians under military command tend to increase in numbers. There was an increase of 15,000 last year in the numbers I have quoted.
Civilians under a civilian contractor are operated more efficiently. Since last year I have visited our Suez Canal bases

now taken over by civilian contractors. That is the most difficult operation in the most difficult country in the world. I believe that they are doing a first-class job extremely efficiently. What can be managed under those difficult circumstances could be very well managed in this country. It is significant that the United States Air Force now has more than half its maintenance and training bases let out to civilian contractors. If the United States has found that more economical, I am sure that we would do so.
My last point concerns the well-being of personnel in the Royal Air Force. Like some other hon. Members, I think that the educational allowances are farcical. I cannot understand why the three Services should be singled out for educational allowances which are at less than half the rate paid to officers in the Foreign Service. According to the answer given to a Parliamentary Question, the total distributed in educational allowances between the three Services is £700,000 a year. There has just been a pay increase of £67 million, and yet the educational allowances will cost only £700,000.
It is terribly important that the allowances should be extended downwards to cover children eight years old. Continuity of education for children between eight and 11, when they take their examinations, is of vital importance to both the children and their parents. That extension in the case of the Air Force would cost probably an additional £60,000. It would seem that we are being most niggardly in this respect. I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the educational allowances, for they certainly do not match the generosity of the rest of the new scheme.
I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would also look at the limit placed on life insurance in respect of flying personnel. He has raised it from £2,000 to £4,000, but I wonder whether flight commanders, squadron leaders and wing commanders would not be much happier if they could insure their lives for a rather higher sum and know that if they lost their lives in operational service their families would be in reasonable comfort and the education of their children could continue. We have had a very encouraging debate. I particularly welcome the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend


in which he said that we are really going to investigate the waste of manpower in the Armed Forces.
To summarise, I would first ask my right hon. Friend to look into the methods of ordering equipment, to ascertain whether they can be improved, and, particularly, to pay regard to the earlier speeches by hon. Friends of mine. Secondly, I would ask him to recognise that we shall have to buy designs from some of our Allies if we are to limit the projects which we back. Thirdly, I would ask him to examine the number of civilians and their efficiency under military command. Fourthly, I would ask him to look again at the educational allowances which have been introduced, and also at the limit placed upon life insurance.
I am sure that we can have peace, and peace at a reasonable price. It is not only a matter of safety of our overseas territories. We want to have adequate resources to invest in those territories and also to export. We can do that if we exercise rigorous economies in every one of our Armed Forces.

TRANSPORT COMMAND

7.14 p.m.

Mr. John Maclay: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
 this House, recognising the growing importance of providing mobility for air and ground forces considers that there is need to re-equip Transport Command with more modern aircraft and urges the importance of close cooperation with civilian operators in order to ensure the most effective use of national resources.
There is a certain element of rough justice in the fact that I was successful in the Ballot and therefore have the privilege of moving this Amendment. For some time past I have had grave doubts whether the intervening Amendment is an ideal form of procedure. I will say no more about it now, except that for many hon. Members on both sides of the House the normal flow of the debates on the Estimates is not always helped by the sudden appearance of an intervening Amendment. If this should be the intervening Amendment to end intervening Amendments in debates on the Air Esti-

mates, some of us would not be too unhappy, but I hope that it may not be the quality of my speech that will have that result.
My Amendment is, I hope, not out of the proper run of a debate upon the Air Estimates. After all, Transport Command is a most important section of the Royal Air Force. Particularly at this moment, when so many events in the world are making absolutely clear the importance of mobility, it may not be a bad thing that we should concentrate discussion for a short time on one part of the Royal Air Force which is as closely involved in mobility as is Transport Command.
My Amendment seeks to raise three main points: first, the tasks of Transport Command; secondly, the means for fulfilling those tasks; and, thirdly, the very important question of how we can be certain that the most effective use is made of all available national resources in fulfilling the basic tasks of Transport Command.
Fighters and bombers are obviously specialised aircraft, but the aircraft required for Transport Command's normal functions would seem to be aircraft which could be used for other purposes and would undoubtedly have civilian application provided that in the early stages of development the possible civilian application was properly borne in mind. That is why I have stressed, at the end of the Amendment, the need to make the most effective possible use of the national resources in meeting the needs of Transport Command.
The Amendment is bound to a certain extent to be exploratory, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm whether certain assumptions that I have had to make are more or less correct. We know a certain amount at present. The aircraft available for Transport Command are, so far as I have been able to discover, the Hastings and the Valetta—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the Pioneer?

Mr. Maclay: I shall come to that in a moment.
We know from the Defence White Paper and memoranda with the other Estimates that there will shortly be the


Comet, the Britannia and the Beverley, That is what we know.
Might I for a few moments try to do some guesswork about the jobs which Transport Command is called upon to do? I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I narrow my remarks to the functions of Transport Command in the cold war or, possibly, limited war. I do this against the background of a good deal of ignorance. It seems to me that the same aircraft which are required for Transport Command under cold-war conditions are probably those required for limited-war conditions under any definition of limited war which has emerged from recent debates.
I am deliberately leaving out what Transport Command might be called upon to do in the lamentable event of a nuclear war. My reason for doing so is that it seems to me at this stage that there must be a great deal of conjecture as to how, in the event of a nuclear war, the available aircraft resources of the country would be marshalled and put to the most effective use. I would just ask the Minister to comment upon whether the problem is being fully studied at the moment. I think it is premature to try to raise it in detail in this debate. Consequently, I shall confine my remarks to the cold-war functions.
It seems to be reasonable guesswork, certainly after listening to the debates of last week and studying the various White Papers, that the first well-known function of Transport Command is to fulfil certain communication tasks, which are described in one phrase as "Route transport work." There is an element of casualty clearing in that work, but I think that one of the obvious functions that one must assume is that of route communication; that is, flying between certain definite points, carrying special equipment and Air Force personnel.
Secondly, Transport Command has been called on in the past to provide an airlift for emergency operation, and it could be called upon to do so in the future. What I have in mind in that respect is, of course, an operation like the airlift to Cyprus. Then there is the additional demand for the services of Transport Command, which emerged

from the Memorandum with the Army Estimates, to provide an airlift for the mobile brigade which is to be permanently available at short notice for moving to any quarter of the world. Finally, there are the aircraft required for parachute operations.
At the moment it seems that there are only the Hastings and Valettas available to fulfil all those tasks, plus, in the case of the Cyprus airlift, Coastal Command, which was called in to provide Shackle-tons and make up the airlift. Before the debate ends, a certain amount may be said about the use of Shackletons. I shall not at this stage do more than question whether the Shackleton is the best plane for the purpose, although one must remind oneself that emergency operations are emergency operations, and if one is to have a Transport Command which is reasonably economical in the use of national resources, it will be necessary, when an emergency happens, for emergency steps to be taken, and one cannot expect all the facilities which one would normally like Transport Command to have at its disposal. I hope that in the course of the debate we will learn a little more about the suitability of Shackletons in these conditions. At the moment they are certainly useful in an emergency.
Then again, we know that in the fairly near future we shall have the Comets, Britannias and Beverleys. I am very glad that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has the same interest in the Prestwick Pioneer that I have. They are a very fine Scottish product. The single-engined version is already well-known and seems to some of us to be a very interesting aircraft with a great future for certain purposes. It should be remembered, however, that the speech of the Secretary of State for War contained the remark that there had never been any question of the single-engined or twinengined Pioneer being a Transport Command plane. There had never been any question of Pioneers being the aircraft to provide the lift for the mobile brigade. They are support planes to be used tactically. If I am wrong, I hope that I shall be corrected. In the debate last week I was puzzled by hon. Members confusing the Pioneer with the type of aircraft that would be needed for communications purposes over long distances and also needed for providing mobility for the


"fire brigade," to use the new term. There seems to have been some misunderstanding. To those of us who knew something about it and who are interested in the success of the Prestwick Pioneer, it seemed "cockeyed" to believe that it could be an aircraft to fulfil the functions of the Britannia.
If I am right in the assessments that I have so far made about the tasks of Transport Command and the aircraft available to fulfil those tasks, two questions obviously emerge. The first is: when will the new aircraft be available. At the moment we have Hastings and Valettas plus Coastal Command. Comets, Britannias and Beverleys are forecast as becoming available for normal Transport Command use at varying intervals over the next two years.
We do not know—and possibly it would not be right for the Under-Secretary to tell us—how many are to be available and when. However, we should like to be assured that these new aircraft will be coming forward in sufficient numbers to fulfil the basic purpose of Transport Command roughly within the next two years. It is always difficult to know how far one can go, from the security aspect, in these matters, although in the case of Transport Command I should not have thought that security had the same importance as some other matters. It would help if we could be told when the aircraft will be available.
The second question is, where will they fit in? I know that the Hastings is a general-purpose plane and seems able to do a great many things. But the Hastings are beginning to get on in years and I think that I am right in saying that they have been in service since about 1947 and are no longer really modern aircraft. We also have Valettas, and I hope that we shall be told a little more than I have been able to find from the White Papers about the uses to which the Valettas can be put. I am sure that its relation, the old Viking, is beginning to disappear from civilian operation. B.E.A. is gradually withdrawing them from its services, although it is still using a few. The Valetta is normally an aircraft in continuous use by Transport Command, and if we could be told a little more about what its use is and whether any substitute for it is contemplated, we shall have a clearer picture of how Transport Com-

mand will look in the next three to six years.
In trying to fit these planes into compartments, it is not unreasonable to guess that the Comet II will be the communication plane and that the Britannia will be the plane to give mobility for emergency operations and will presumably be the aircraft that will lift the highly mobile brigade now being formed. One of the troubles is that the Memorandum on the Army Estimates which deals with this independent brigade uses the following words:
We have therefore selected one independent infantry brigade to be earmarked for such tasks and the Air Ministry have agreed to supply a flight of light aircraft to support this brigade as soon as it becomes available.
The question is what the words "as soon as it becomes available" qualify—the flight of light aircraft or the brigade? That is why there has been a good deal of conjecture about what the words really mean.
Perhaps we could be told whether not only the brigade, but the aircraft are available or, if one of the two is not available, which it is. We have seen the movement of troops to Cyprus, under emergency conditions carried out very effectively, indeed, with the aircraft at present available to Transport Command and Coastal Command. Is it considered possible, with the present availability of aircraft, that Transport Command can make a fair job of handling the mobile brigade?

Air Commodore Harvey: Or have we to wait for the Britannias?

Mr. Maclay: That is the question, whether we have to wait for the Britannias?
My next point is about the Beverley. I find it difficult to place. I understand that when it comes along it will be an aircraft able to take heavy lifts and also able to carry a fairly large number of men. But the type of life and the loading arrangements of the Beverley suggest that the aircraft was originally designed, not for the mobile brigade, but rather to give logistic support to major operations. We want to know whether the Beverley is really a suitable aircraft for Transport Command's needs as they now emerge in present-day conditions. I believe that the range of the Beverley is fairly good, as is its lifting capacity. I


shall have more to say about the Beverley when dealing with the question of making the most effective use of available resources. Can we be told how the Beverley will fit into the general scheme of Transport Command's modern tasks?
I do not wish to get into the realm of broader policies in this debate, but one cannot avoid questioning the scale of the parachute operations which are likely in conditions of cold war or in a limited war. One wonders what aircraft in the long-term control of Transport Command will be used for parachute dropping. So far as I know, at present the Hastings fulfils this function. Clearly, the Britannias or the Comets are not likely to be used for parachute drops in the future. Is it intended that the Hastings shall continue to be used for that job, or is another type of aircraft in contemplation which would be suitable?
I seem to have put a great many questions, but that appeared to me to be much the most useful way of discovering what is in contemplation for this extremely important part of the Air Force. It seemed right to make certain suppositions and to try to see whether one could fit the known planes and new aircraft to the suppositions about tasks which I have been making.
I wish now to come to the latter part of the Amendment which deals with the effective use of our resources. As I said at the beginning of my speech, practically all the aircraft required for Transport Command are capable of civilian application and can be used for civilian purposes. One therefore poses the question, is it practical, in conditions of the cold war, when economy is extremely important, for Transport Command to have under its own control more than a percentage of its total requirements for the various functions which I have endeavoured to describe?
It may well be that in a period of emergency we should call on civilian operators using similar planes. That could be done under some arrangement which should not be too difficult to arrive at. One could even imagine some kind of Transport Command reserve, an auxiliary squadron made possible by the co-operation of independent operators working with the nationalised corporations. I know that that kind of idea presents all sorts of problems,

including the immediate availability of aircraft and certain problems of security, though I should not have thought that security was as serious an issue as that of the availability of aircraft.
I believe I am right in saying that some years ago the experiment was made of having some kind of transport squadron standing by, recruited partly from the independent operators and partly from the nationalised operators. It would be interesting to know whether that experiment has gone on. Or has it been dropped, and, if so, why?
Regarding availability, it would obviously be difficult for independent operators or nationalised operators to have particular aircraft available at particular points at a given moment. The same problem must apply to Transport Command, and there must be difficulty in gathering a collection of aircraft to fulfil an emergency function. I know that there is the added difficulty that civilian operators might have aircraft which were being used on contract and other forms of work, and that there would have to be a penalty clause for breach of contract. But these are all obvious difficulties, and it would be useful to know whether careful study has been given to the possibility of calling on civilian operators to make up the requirements of Transport Command, rather than keeping an excessive number of aircraft available to Transport Command, full use of which may not be made in normal conditions.
That brings me to my final point about the economic importance of the effective use of our national resources in the planning and production of new planes. A number of hon. Members have touched on this point, and have raised the question of the contact between the demands of the using Ministry and the manufacturer. I would go a stage further in dealing with Transport Command. If it is agreed that the type of aircraft required is a common user aircraft which would have a civilian as well as a military application, it seems to me that in the early stages of development the civilian operator should be consulted to see whether, from the very beginning of planning and development, a dual-purpose aircraft could be produced.
The only function which seems to present serious difficulties in this respect


is that of the aircraft required for parachute drops. I understand that the requirements for efficient parachute drops produce a rather awkward plane. The size of the door, the size of the aperture, becomes rather a nightmare to the manufacturer, who has to produce an aircraft which may be of little use to a civilian operator. If the civilian operator were fully consulted at an early stage, however, perhaps there might be some compromise on either side, which would mean that the manufacturer could design and produce a plane which would be much cheaper in the long run, because it might be capable of being sold to civilian operators all over the world.
There is some reason to doubt whether that has been the practice in the past. Clearly, that does not apply to the Britannia and the Comet, but one would like an assurance that careful thought is given to this matter when consideration is undertaken of the future requirements of Transport Command and new types of aircraft. The kind of charge made against the Services on these occasions is that while there may be a certain amount of consultation in the early stages, the military requirements receive too much attention and by the time the aircraft emerges it is almost useless for civilian purposes.
I have tried to raise a number of purely practical problems which are relevant to the Estimates we are discussing and the Amendment which I have moved.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have one suggestion to make in support of the last point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) made, and one question which I wish to put to the Minister. My first point is quite simple; it is whether we are giving sufficient stress and placing sufficient importance on the need for co-ordinating military and civil specifications. Over the last year it seems to me that there has been one predominant example where there has been a failure to produce either a military or a civil type of aircraft, and a certain amount of money has been spent on the military version. I do not wish to raise old issues which have been settled—perhaps rightly or perhaps wrongly—but that is an example where I feel that there might

have been much more co-ordination at an early stage, not only between the manufacturer and the Service user, but between the manufacturer, the Service user and perhaps the independent civil operator, both in this country and abroad.
It seems to me that if we take the example of shipping, there is a certain continuity of interest between the Commonwealth operators and operators in this country. In my opinion we might well have consulted, and may now consult, the civilian operators throughout the Commonwealth to try to get an agreed form of development. It may be that the Services want to put winches in an aircraft, and to have special means of strengthening the aircraft so that heavier equipment may be carried.
Perhaps the phrase we have heard so often is true. Perhaps we are trying to do too much. Perhaps the Services should not now be asking for aircraft which can transport heavier materials than need be transported in time of extraordinary emergency. It may be that we do not need to transport heavy vehicles; it may be that, instead, we should have bases throughout the Commonwealth which would have supplies of these vehicles, in which case all that we would need to do would be to move personnel from the centre of any strategic reserve to the point where they were to be used.
I make a plea for more co-ordination between the manufacturer, the Service user, the civilian user and the Commonwealth operator. I make this plea because Transport Command and various Services at present seem to want very rigid specifications, and want to have built into aircraft all sorts of equipment which will only add to their weight and reduce their efficiency. Transport Command and' the Services should reduce the amount of equipment for which they are asking.
I should like the Minister to state-whether we have closed our minds for all time to the development of the flying boat. It may be that we cannot proceed with the idea, but it seems to me that the flying boat might well be the answer to our need for providing cheap travel in the civilian sense, and a large space for the transport of Service equipment. It may be that we have dropped this matter for so long now that it cannot be carried through any further. I merely ask if we have in fact arrived at the point where we say, "No


more flying boats" and cast this matter out of our minds for all time.
It seems to me that the flying boat is one of the best means of communication throughout the Commonwealth, able to connect us with the Mediterranean, the Near East and through to the Far East. It may be that that is a channel of communication to which we can look in the future.
I end by sustaining the plea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West for more co-ordination at an earlier stage in drawing up specifications for Service and civilian operators.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. de Freitas: I also hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the question of the flying boat. I do not pretend to know the answer, but since so much of our influence has been due to our being a maritime people, the flying boat would seem to have some significance.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State to the select group of those whose first office has been that of Under-Secretary of State for Air. I cannot say that I wish him a long and happy tenure of office, but I go as far as I can in welcoming him.
I agree that Transport Command should be strengthened, and I hope that the Beverleys, Britannias and Comets will come along more quickly than is at present forecast. I also hope that there will be an improvement in the trooping conditions in aircraft supplied by contractors. A better standard in trooping in transport aircraft should be insisted upon. Women and children use these aircraft as part of the ordinary movement of troops and their families and, too often, these aircraft are not pressurised. The very least we could do for the comfort of wives and children would be to pressurise them all, I also hope that in dealing with the contracts for troop transports the Government will reverse their deplorable decision and allow the nationalised corporations to tender. It was wrong of the Government to prevent competition from the nationalised corporations. If they were allowed to compete we should have a much higher standard in the whole matter of trooping.
I do not expect an answer from the Under-Secretary of State immediately, but when he replies to the main debate I

hope that he will say something about the accident figures for Royal Air Force Transport Command; for the Corporations who have engaged in transport, and also for the charter companies who have engaged in transport. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) for raising this subject. I am sorry that many hon. Members have been so occupied with other problems, which face us all, that they have not been able to speak in this part of the debate. The question of Transport Command and trooping is something which the Government cannot afford to overlook.

7.45 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I rise only as a result of what has been said in this debate upon the very interesting topic of Transport Command. I went over to Duxford airfield on the Saturday on which we celebrated the anniversary of the Battle of Britain, where I saw a wonderful display of the latest jet fighters. The Hunter was very impressive to look at, when I could see it. I could not always do so, because it flew so fast. Towards the end of the display there was a demonstration by the Cambridgeshire Regiment which was recently changed into a paratroop regiment. A Hastings aircraft was cruising round, in marked contrast to the other aircraft which I had seen, if only because it moved so slowly.
The important point occurred to me as a result of that demonstration, that there may be room for even more training than is given today to pilots in Transport Command acting in co-operation with paratroops. It so happened that in this display the dropping ground for the regiment was upon ground which was slightly higher than that over which the main display had taken place. In this instance I believe that the pilot had calculated that he should fly at a certain height above sea level, and he did so most admirably.
Unfortunately, it is rather important that paratroops should be dropped at a certain height above the surface of the ground, and the fact that the ground upon which these troops were to be dropped was rather higher than the surrounding land caused them some complication, in that they were not able to do various things which they normally have to do with their parachutes before they actually hit the ground. They were able to get them open all right, but they have to


make a certain amount of compensation for drift, and also have to sort out their equipment, and unless they have time to do so between leaving the aircraft and hitting the ground there are likely to be accidents when they do finally land. On this occasion there was one accident, although it was not desperately serious.
I mention this matter because it seems to me rather important that Transport Command should not merely have the right aircraft but should have sufficient opportunity to co-operate with paratroops whenever it can. I hope that nothing I have said today will injure relations between the Cambridgeshire Regiment and the local stations of the Royal Air Force, which are as good as they possibly can be. That is a point in favour both of the Royal Air Force and the Cambridgeshire Regiment.
A few years back I remember that great dissatisfaction was felt with the type of aircraft made available, especially in respect of rear loading. It is absolutely essential that paratroops should have aircraft with rear loading facilities. I know nothing about aerodynamics, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) mentioned flying boats, and it has always seemed to me that the tail of the flying boat cocked itself up in the air more than did the tails of other aircraft. That might be very advantageous for paratroops, if they have to land on or near islands. No doubt this is a matter which raises a great many complications in design, if only from the point of view of keeping aircraft watertight.
It is important that the Air Ministry should realise that some of the equipment which has to be carried by paratroops is a great deal heavier than that which could comfortably be carried in some of the other types of aircraft now in use. The Cambridgeshire Regiment is a gunnery regiment. The better the guns the more complicated will be the problem of providing the paratroopers with adequate exits from the aircraft. If we are to keep paratroopers as an essential part of our striking force I hope that the aircraft available for them will be far more up-to-date and far more suited to military use than the Transport Command aircraft which my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier in the debate, in which it has been

customary to carry infantry about the world to their various tasks.
The former would be an essential part of the tactical striking force, dropping men by parachute, whereas the other provides a means of transport and uses orthodox methods and runways on which the aircraft can land. I hope we shall have an assurance that the Air Ministry feels the need for a certain section of Transport Command to be in perpetual readiness to carry adequately the troops who are part of our main striking force. I hope that civilian co-operation will be forthcoming for transporting the ordinary infantry troops in aircraft which will land in the normal way and that the Government will take steps to ensure that there is always aircraft available.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and his supporting colleagues have spoken of the difficulty of getting new aircraft for Transport Command and suggested that we should devise a dual-purpose machine which would serve both military and civil needs. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) reminded us of the little discussion that we had on the subject a few months ago.
The point is of interest to me because I am a regular user of civil air transport and have always regarded safety as being the first characteristic in the building of a civil machine. I am not thereby implying that speed and safety are necessarily in conflict, but I would draw attention to paragraph 43 of the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for Air. It notes:
 There has been a further decrease in the fatal and major accident rates during 1955 despite the increased complexity of the aircraft now in service. The major accident rate for all types of aircraft is the lowest recorded for 10 years and the fatal accident rate for jet and piston-engined aircraft combined is the lowest recorded for 20 years.
We have read that with interest and with a certain amount of relief. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have something to say about it. There is a common impression that major disasters to Service machines are very much greater in number than those to civil machines. The reason why we do not hear so much about disasters to Service machines is that they seem to be regarded as merely the risk of the trade.
A Service disaster occupies a small corner in the newspaper, but disaster to a civil machine is headline news. Unless there is something unique about a Service air disaster, the news always appears as a little note in the Press, as something which we might expect to happen. Therefore, it does not get the same amount of attention as a civil disaster. Somehow or other, speed is regarded as having something to do with disaster.

Mr. P. Williams: There is no underrating of the tragedy of a Service disaster, but it usually involves one aircraft and one person whereas a civil aircraft disaster involves a number of people.

Mr. Rankin: It was in my mind that it is very often a training aircraft that crashes, with only one or two persons. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the disaster takes place. From a superficial view, people feel that the faster a machine travels the greater the danger of an accident.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): These arguments are more relevant to the main Question than to the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: I Was speaking from notes which I made during the speeches of the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. What I was developing seemed to arise from what they had said. I have always opposed the idea of the dual-purpose machine that seemed to be advocated from the Government benches. Speed is not necessarily related to the possibility of disaster, but, nevertheless, it is difficult to satisfy the requirements of both those who use civil machines and those who want to use military machines.

Mr. Maclay: Many of the tasks performed by Transport Command are very comparable to those done by civilian operators.

Mr. Rankin: Nevertheless, even with Transport Command aircraft it is absolutely essential that they should move between the point of take-off and the point of landing as speedily as possible. That is an essential characteristic of those machines, whereas the characteristic of the civil machine must be that it shall move as safely and as economically as

possible. It seems to me that in designing a civil machine to serve the dual purpose the element of cost comes in. Therefore, the question of fares comes in, and we tend more and more to limit the civil machine to a smaller passenger group.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that speed and safety are not in conflict, and when I talk of speed I am talking of big speeds. I know that the Viscount can travel at a very high speed indeed. As a matter of fact I came from Glasgow this morning in 1 hour 10 minutes, which shows what speed means to us on that route.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I may catch your eye later, but that is the point I wanted to make. As accidents seem to occur more often on the military than on the civil side, I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that in the civil machine the speed will not be achieved at the expense of safety.

8.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) on choosing the subject of Transport Command for this intervening Amendment. I knew that he felt it was a pity if such an intervening Amendment should cut too much into the main debate, but certainly Transport Command is a vital part of the R.A.F. and this little debate within the debate has enabled us to concentrate, to highlight, to bring out into relief, this part of the R.A.F. which is very important and becoming increasingly so, and which normally, in the course of an Estimates debate, would not, perhaps, get the attention that it deserves.
From the way the debate has gone I think that it would be convenient if I were first to talk about the functions of Transport Command, then to say something of the aircraft that we have today and hope to have in the future, and then to talk about civil transport—whether the aircraft are available in civil transport and see to what degree there is co-operation between the military and civil sides of aviation.
We cannot have in all parts of the world all the forces either for the R.A.F. or for the Army, that we need for garrison duties, and military thought has turned more and more to a strategic reserve which in times of emergency can be carried with the greatest possible speed to any troubled area. How would one define the rôle of Transport Command? First, I would say that its duty is, in an emergency, to carry a given number of troops to any given place throughout the world, and not necessarily on scheduled routes. Therefore, its standard of training must be very high.

Mr. Rankin: As quickly as possible?

Mr. Soames: And as quickly as possible.
Secondly, it must consist of aircraft which are able to carry very bulky and heavy weights of military equipment. Thirdly, if our air power is to be widely dispersed—as modern thought rightly demands that it should be—we must be able to reinforce our operational squadrons in the Middle East and the Far East, if need be, and provide in a time of emergency, all the backing which they need operationally—which is considerable. Lastly, Transport Command must be able to lift airborne troops and to maintain them with supplies by air drops.
All these tasks of which I have been talking up to now are tasks of an emergency, and I think there is a certain feeling that perhaps the aircraft in Transport Command are not properly used. One hon. Member asked what was the use of having aircraft sitting on the ground for use in such an emergency, and said that surely it should be possible to use the civilian transport for that role. Indeed, I would quote a passage from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) in the defence debate. He then said:
I do not believe that large quantities of aircraft of that nature can be kept in Transport Command just sitting on the ground, idly waiting in case one day they may be wanted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1078.]
What sort of jobs do these aircraft perform in quieter times? A lot of time was taken up during the last year in providing logistic backing for our rocket and guided weapon experiments at the Woomera Range in Australia. That

involved about six round trips per month. We are hoping to be able to lessen the amount of work which has been done by Transport Command and to give more to the civil side on that particular run, because it is becoming a standard, scheduled run. There are, of course, certain trips where there is a security aspect, and those will have to remain within Transport Command.
Then there is aero-medical evacuation from overseas theatres. That is a task for Transport Command. It is of the greatest benefit both from the point of view of the men and of the Services. Obviously, from the point of view of the man himself as a casualty, the quicker he gets back to this country the better, and from the point of view of the Services it lifts the load to some extent from the medical services. One of the main reasons for doing that work by Transport Command and not by the civil side is that military airfields are used, the machines carry military doctors, there is military staging overnight, and military nurses—it is a complete military operation.
Then come the liaison and training trips of Bomber Command. For instance, when a squadron of Canberras recently went to Nigeria when the Queen was there, and flew quite a long distance in Africa, they had logistic support from Transport Command.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What was the cost?

Mr. Soames: I have not the figures.
I turn next to the rôle of training. There are all types of training, including continuation and route training for Transport Command itself. There is training for the strategic force, which involves co-operation between the Army and the R.A.F.; and there is parachute training. Transport Command does all the parachute training for the Army.
So much for the type of job which Transport Command is doing on a day-to-day basis, What sort of aircraft are we using for these tasks, and what sort are we to have? Transport Command has undergone little change in the last three years. It still consists of Hastings for the strategic long hauls and Valettas for the short hauls, but in order to meet the new concept of a strategic reserve


which is highly mobile we are on the threshold of a three-year re-equipment programme. Between March this year and March next year Transport Command will be joined by Beverleys and Comets, and we shall to some extent be running down the force of Hastings. Between March, 1957, and March, 1958, they will be joined by more Comets, and in 1958–59 the Britannias are due into service.

Major Legge-Bourke: What mark of Comet?

Mr. Soames: The Comet II
I wish now to say a word about these aircraft and how they will fit into our operational requirements. First, the Comet, Following the accident report on the Comet and examinations undertaken by the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, a number of Comet IIs are being strengthend and modified. They have still to pass a number of tests but, provided they do so, they will start coming into service during the coming twelve months.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman said that a number of Comet Ifs were being strengthened. In what way?

Mr. Soames: The floors are being strengthened in order to carry freight. They will carry light freight and passengers, but we have to strengthen the floors in order that freight can be put into the aircraft. They will carry about the same number of passengers as the Hastings, but we shall get considerable advantage from them because they travel three times as fast. Although the number of passengers is about the same, the aircraft will in fact, over a suitable run, be able to carry three times as many passengers in a given period as the Hastings.

Mr. Rankin: Only the floor is being strengthened? No more strength is being built into the airframe?

Mr. Soames: We see no necessity for building more strength into the airframe, in view of all the examinations which have been carried out at the Royal Aeronautical Establishment. The aircraft have been modified in so far as the accident reports demanded modification for them to be able to fly at all, but, apart from the floor, there is to be no special strengthening for military purposes.

Mr. Beswick: These fuselages had already been built at the time of the unfortunate accident to the Comet I and at the time of the test at Farnborough and it was as a result of this test that we understood that some strengthening of the fuselage was to be carried out. My hon. Friend is asking whether that strengthening which is to go into the new Comet Its is to be put into these fuselages being built for service?

Mr. Soames: I was talking from the point of view of military work as opposed to civil work. The only strengthening that we are to do is to the floors.
We had hoped to welcome the Beverley into service at the end of 1955. There were some development difficulties, but the first Beverley will be joining Transport Command exactly a week from today, and the first squadron will be formed during this summer. It is a strange-looking aircraft. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) talked about an aircraft with its tail cocked up in the air, and the Beverley's tail is cocked up very high in the air. It is a strange-looking aircraft but it will be extremely useful, for it can carry very bulky equipment and a very heavy load. It will be able to carry up to 36,000 lb., but on a 1,000-mile trip it will be able to carry 26,000 lb. I cannot give the exact figure, but it will be able to hold over 90 passengers and it will be able to hold 72 parachutists and their equipment.
The Britannia, which is coming into service in 1958–59, will be the Britannia 253, and it will be able to carry both passengers and freight. It will be able to carry some 100 passengers over a staging of 2,500 miles.
What will be the results at the end of the three-year re-equipment programme? To what extent shall we be better off? In terms of numbers of aircraft, we shall have half as many again as today, but perhaps I might put the figures in the crude and simple form of the number of passengers which could be carried. Not only passengers are concerned, but freight as well, but for easy comprehension it would be best for me to use the figures for passengers.
Transport Command, half as big again as today in numbers of aircraft, will be able to carry three times the number of


passengers it can carry today, and it will be able to carry them at considerably higher speeds. Let me give an example of what that means. When two battalions of a parachute regiment and brigade headquarters were recently moved to Cyprus, they were moved by 52 aircraft and the move took forty hours. That reflects the greatest credit on all concerned; it was an extremely efficient operation showing skill and a high degree of co-operation. When the three-year re-equipment programme has been completed, however, Transport Command will be able to do a great deal better than that. If we wanted the same move over the same distance, carrying the same number of troops in forty hours, then instead of taking 52 aircraft it could be done with five Britannias. Alternatively, if we wanted to put the whole force on to the move and get the troops out there in less than forty hours, using the whole of Transport Command as we then intend it shall be, it could be done within a day.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: When we get greater speeds will there be any greater comfort for the troops who are to be carried in these aircraft? There certainly ought to be more comfort than that provided for the boys who left for Cyprus.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Shackleton. There is nothing uncomfortable about a Hastings aircraft, but the Shackleton is admittedly uncomfortable. I had a look at one not long ago, fully loaded with troops, and nobody would pretend that it was comfortable. I did not mention it, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about it in his opening speech. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard him, but he covered the point fully. Although nobody would deny that the aircraft is uncomfortable. I do not believe that the measure of discomfort, bearing in mind that it would be called on only in times of emergency, outweighs the extremely valuable asset which we are glad to have in the Shackleton as a reserve of military transport until the three-year re-equipment programme has been completed.
Another question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West was whether the Air Staff, when ordering aircraft for transport, consults sufficiently with civilian interests. That

obviously is in order to see whether the requirements of the civil and military kinds can be met together. That is a most important matter, for one wishes to avoid overloading and, to the extent which we can, a factory tooling up to produce a comparatively small number of aircraft.
I will refer quickly to the aircraft that we have and are to have. The Hastings is a very close relation to the Hermes, the Valetta is a very close relation of the Viking, and we know that the Comet was a civilian aircraft. The Beverley was originally conceived as a civilian aircraft. The firm which produced it thought there would be a commercial application for a plane with the operational capabilities of the Beverley, able to carry heavier freight over quite long distances. For our use it has been adapted a lot since it was originally conceived, but, as the first of these aircraft are just due to come into the Service, it is too early to say that it would not be suitable for civilian interests. We have to see what the reaction would be from the commercial world.
We are taking only a very small number of the Britannias which are being manufactured. There is also an operational requirement for a medium-range general purposes aircraft to replace the Valetta. Before the design stages our operational requirements were sent to the principal manufacturing firms to see whether the aircraft could be modified to meet their requirements and at the same time to meet our needs. Those inquiries are going on. I cannot tell the House what will come of them, but I think that shows that we have tried to meet the civilian interests. Not only do we appreciate the principle which was raised, but we also apply it.
The flying boat was mentioned by my Hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and also by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). There is no thought in our minds of using flying boats for Transport Command. We were asked whether we considered that the days of the flying boat were over. That is not for me to say, but Transport Command has no plans for acquiring or using flying boats.
A question was asked about the Prestwick Pioneer, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend. There was a certain misunderstanding in the House as


to the duties of the Pioneer. It is not a Transport Command aircraft in the sense of transporting large numbers of troops from A to B, but is a purely tactical aircraft, which is now being used in Malaya. Our plan is to have some in the Middle East and some in the Far East, under the command of the Middle East Air Force and the Far East Air Force, and also to have some in this country. We are relying on the single-engined Pioneer and are also looking at the twin-engined Pioneer—which has been flying for quite a while; but no decision has yet been reached whether it should be ordered, and in what numbers.
I now turn to the question of civilian aircraft. The hon. Member for Lincoln asked why B.O.A.C. was not used. He knows well that it has been Government policy for a long time to use private companies for air charter. There was a debate on that subject in the House. From the point of view of the Government it is considered to be of the highest value to have a reserve of civil air transport aircraft within private companies. The more that can be built up and the more jobs we can offer them, the more they will grow and the more we shall have a reserve of transport aircraft to be used in case of emergency.

Mr. de Freitas: Of course I am complaining that that is Government policy. I knew it was. I entirely agree that we should have this reserve of civil aircraft, but they would be more efficient if they were allowed to have competition by tendering with the Corporations.

Mr. Soames: There is considerable competition in tendering. Competition in tendering for trooping is probably the keenest of any form of air transport tendering under present circumstances. The Air Ministry is responsible for the charters for all three Services. The longest contract is for three years. We should like to be able to do better. We know how important it would be and to what an extent it would help the industry if charters could be given for a longer period and if we could look further ahead, but we have to strike a balance to enable the industry to plan ahead and at the same time to keep an eye on the amount of money being spent. We do not wish to make a contract with a firm for which

we may not have a requirement when the time comes.
When inviting tenders, preference is given to the more modern aircraft. Safety standards are laid down by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. They are just as stringent for trooping as for carrying civilians. In fact, we provide an additional safety factor which is not incumbent upon us by statute in any way. We provide in-flight inspection by R.A.F. officers, who travel on the trooping planes to ensure that the full safety standards are observed.
It may interest the House to have a few figures about trooping. In 1954–55, 172,000 troops were carried by air, compared with 121,000 carried by sea. Of that 172,000 92 per cent. were carried by charter companies and only 8 per cent. by Transport Command.

Mr. James Callaghan: That is not very good.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member says that is not good, but indeed it is good.
We do as much trooping as we possibly can with the air charter companies. Wherever we get scheduled flights for which we can foresee regularity over a long period ahead, that should be done by civil industry and not by Transport Command. I was saying earlier what Transport Command did and how it fills the gap of its utilisation with trooping. The long-term regular requirement is, and should be, met by the civil firms.

Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures as between the independent charterers and the Corporations?

Mr. de Freitas: The Corporations are not allowed to do it.

Mr. Soames: Virtually all trooping is done by the independent companies except that the Corporations tender for ad hoc trooping. The long-term contracts are not tendered for by the Corporations.
The hon. Member for Lincoln asked about accident rates. In 1954–55, 439 million passenger miles were flown by the charter companies in trooping, and only one passenger was injured. During 1955–56, the mileage was only slightly less and there was no injury whatever until the terrible disaster in Malta a few weeks ago. I cannot give the accident rate for


Transport Command, but it is very small indeed.
My right hon. Friend asked whether it would not be a good idea to train auxiliary transport squadrons from the air charter company personnel and aircraft. This possibility was tried and was found not to be a success, for two main reasons. First, we had to keep aircraft in this country for weekend auxiliary training when they could have been doing a useful job in trooping. Secondly, it was not a popular suggestion with the men that they should be asked to do the same thing at weekends as they were doing during the week. For anyone who works in an office in London, it may be very agreeable to spend the weekend with an auxiliary fighter squadron; but when somebody who spends his whole week doing maintenance work on aircraft with his company is asked to do exactly the same job at weekends, not unnaturally the idea is unpopular. The scheme did not work, and we have decided not to go ahead with it.
To sum up, there would appear to be three distinct military uses for transport aircraft. First, they have to provide for the mobility for the strategic reserve. Their second rôle is in air trooping; and thirdly, they fulfil sporadic, miscellaneous tasks of a military character. As between Transport Command and the civil air transport industry, Transport Command's first task is to be ready at all times at short notice, with, if necessary, during this intervening period, support from Coastal Command Shackle-tons, to move our strategic reserve wherever it may be required. During the year it fills up its time by indulging in the sporadic, miscellaneous but highly important tasks of a military character which I have outlined. The civil air charter operators concentrate on air trooping, but can in an emergency be called upon to help move the strategic reserve.
The record of Transport Command since its inception in 1943 has been excellent. Its crews are as highly trained and skilled as any in the world. It has already rendered great service, and the House may be sure that its future record will match up to its past. I hope I have dealt with the Amendment sufficiently for my right hon. Friend to feel justified in withdrawing it.

Mr. Maclay: In view of the eminently encouraging nature of the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary from the Dispatch Box, on which I am sure the House would wish me to congratulate him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his first appearance at the Box. Up to now, he has not had much to answer. There seems to be a general tone of unanimity and agreement on both sides of the House, which I propose to disturb. As we wish to test the mettle of the hon. Gentleman, I intend to give him the real case against spending something like £479 million this year on the Royal Air Force.
What is the background to all this? We have heard a good deal during this debate of a pleasant new catch-phrase—" delivery of a nuclear deterrent." When anyone wants to defend indefensible things he calls them by pleasant names. From both sides of the House we shall have this catch-phrase repeated again and again until it is debunked. I want to do a little to debunk it. Why not call it by its proper name—an arrangement for the dropping of hydrogen bombs on other people?
Hydrogen bombs or atomic bombs are for dropping on great cities, massacring women and children, dislocating industry and creating havoc, anarchy and ruin throughout what is called the civilised world. That is the purpose. We use this nice little phrase, "delivery of a nuclear deterrent," as if it were a real and pleasant fact. What is the background? We are supposed to be arranging to deliver a nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union, and for that purpose we are spending almost £500 million on the Royal Air Force. It is part of the gigantic arms race between East and West.
We are no longer thinking of the arms race in terms of cruisers or dreadnoughts or armies; we are thinking of the ability it wipe out each other. How much nearer are we in this country getting to this objective? If we are going in for an arms race, it can only be justified on the possibility of our winning it. There is no


sign at all in the Air Estimates this year, or in the Defence Estimates which preceded them, that we are in any way nearer winning the arms race in the delivery of a nuclear deterrent.
For many years, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) and I have been present at the debate on the Air Estimates. We have talked about the possibility of our catching up with the Russians. How nearer are we to catching up with the Russians than we were when we embarked on the rearmament programme after the war? I have here the international supplement of the New York Times which asks:
 Are the Russians winning the arms race? 
It goes on to make comparisons between the military efforts of the United States and of the U.S.S.R. We presumably do not come into this because our activities are more or less insignificant. But we are part and parcel of this international production of a nuclear deterrent, and we are only justified in going on with it if there is some prospect of success.
In the New York Times supplement there is an article written by the military correspondent which says that the U.S.S.R. has actually caught up with and may overtake the arms race against the United States. So we do not appear to be in it. At the same time, we are spending an enormous amount of money and an enormous amount of our industrial organisation is being used not for the real economic purpose of the survival of this country, but in preparing these bomber forces. We are sacrificing the real industry of the country for the production of the bomber.
I have frequently heard the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield talking about the need to improve our civil aircraft, but the more we devote the energy and technical resources of our industry to this bomber business the less we are able to use material, labour and technical resources for our civilian industries. While we are taking away from the production of civil aircraft men and material and making them produce bombers, which the hon. and gallant Member said will be obsolete in fifteen years' time, we are losing a great potential market and losing the race with the United States for the production of civil aircraft.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member has obviously not studied all the American papers. The Boeing 707, ordered in quantities as a bomber, is now being developed as a trans-Atlantic aeroplane.

Mr. Hughes: I have papers here telling the full story of the struggle between the bombers and civil aircraft on the other side of the Atlantic. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member would seriously challenge the statement that the United States now claims that it is ousting this country from the civilian aircraft markets of the world. Across the pages of Newsweek is the story of the battle of the Americans for the international market in civilian aircraft. We are losing that battle and moving forward into an age of unemployment because we are making bombers instead of concentrating our industry and resources upon civilian aircraft.
If we are now spending so much of our energy on bombers, what will happen to the industry in a few years' time? When bombers become more and more obsolete we shall be faced with the fact that our resources have been used on the wrong things. We shall be moving forward into unemployment as a result of concentrating so much of our present energies on building a nuclear deterrent which the United States already possesses. When America has now so many air bases in the world and could smash Russia to pieces in fewer than twenty-four hours, what on earth is the use of our producing the nuclear deterrent as well? I have not heard the answer to that question. I hope that we shall hear it from the Government tonight.

Mr. P. Williams: Has the hon. Member ever thought of the possibility of Britain following a slightly different foreign policy, though perhaps only marginally different, from that of the United States—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would not be in order to discuss the foreign policies of the respective countries.

Mr. Williams: May I ask whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) thinks it possible for us to think in terms of different policies throughout the world unless we have the deterrent ourselves?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has merely dropped the word "foreign."

Mr. Hughes: I am not going to be drawn into that argument. I am moving steadily towards my objective along a very narrow tightrope. I wish only to dispose of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. P. Williams) in one sentence. It is that India has not the nuclear deterrent, that she is not spending £500 million a year on atomic bombs and that she appears to be influencing the affairs of the world as much as we are doing.
I am still asking the indecent question in these debates, how much do these things cost? I have been asking it for years and I am always put off. How much do these bombers cost? I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, how much does the Victor bomber cost? One estimate I have heard was £600,000 or £500.000—at any rate it costs over £400,000. I will sit down if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me the approximate figure.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is a long way out.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Well, I have heard £800,000. Perhaps we are nearer the figure now? I may be underestimating the cost of the bomber, but if my original figure is correct, that one of the Victor bombers costs £600,000, then a large number of them is more than this country can afford.
I am afraid that we are building up a formidable vested interest which year by year will be producing all sorts of arguments why the £500 million we are spending every year should remain a static figure—the sacred cow of the rearmament argument. We should read what they are doing in the United States of America. In that country they are trying to face up to the aircraft industry. Apparently there are some people in the United States who, like myself in this House, raise questions in Congress, asking if it is not time that we applied economy to the huge sums paid every year to the aircraft industry. I have in my hand a copy of a technical paper called Aviation Week. In a column called

"Washington Roundup," a paragraph headed "Profits Investigation" states:
Public hearings on military aircraft contracts and profits will open 15th February before the House Armed Services Investigating Subcommittee headed by Repve. Edward Hebert…The fifteen airframe manufacturers will appear first.
That is what we should be doing in this country, bringing fifteen of the biggest companies producing aircraft, and making the biggest profits, before the Public Accounts Committee and having a most searching investigation into their ramifications and influence.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is exactly what is happening before the Estimates Committee at this moment?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Then I shall look forward with interest to its Report. It is one of the subjects on which there appears to be a great lack of information for hon. Members of this House. The paragraph continues:
…the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Armed Services…is reviewing a comprehensive report on defense contract policies and profits…The committee staff launched a study after Mayhorn, in a House floor speech, announced a 'gloves off' investigation of defense profits and declared that ' they have in some instances reached supersonic speeds '.
I think that the aircraft profits in this country have also reached supersonic speeds. The paragraph ends:
The taxpayer is being taken for a merry ride.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman and I had an interesting encounter in an Adjournment debate in which he dealt with the profits of his company. I shall not deal with his company tonight—

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can do so if he likes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The day after this debate, there appeared in the Daily Express an account of the profits that were being made by a company which makes aircraft for the Royal Air Force. In its City column on 9th December the following statement was made:
Air pioneer Sir Thomas Octave Murdoch Sopwith pushes the earnings of his Hawker Siddeley engineering and aircraft group through the profit barrier this morning, reporting them at a lofty £13,830,000.


This was the day after our debate. The Daily Express said:
What profits! They are a record in the life of the Hawker firm and a clear £4,377,000 up on last time's intake.
I hope that all this will come before the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. P. Williams: For the sake of accuracy, would the hon. Gentleman agree that at least half those profits are made in Canada?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It does not really matter if they are made in Canada. If they are made in Canada, we can accuse the firm of taking a vital industry away from this country, and we can also accuse it of putting up its factories in Canada because the Canadian Government does not extract as much taxation from its profits as the British Government does.
The Daily Express went on:
…with such a hefty profit under his belt, it is not surprising that Sir Thomas does his shareholders proud. First, he ups their dividends by equal to 7 per cent. at 17½ per cent., putting £468,000 of extra jingle in their pockets.
It is time somebody spoke up for the taxpayers of this country. It went on
Then he plans a dip into past profits for £11,644,700 to hand round one share free for each now held, provided the Capital Issues Committee agrees to the idea. The extra cash Sir Thomas hands round to shareholders might well be the curtain-raiser for a bout of cash-raising later on.
This is only one illustration of a very powerful vested interest which carries on incessant propaganda in order to keep up the Air Estimates of this country. The Daily Express went on:
 For he plans to jack up the Hawker's capital by 12,000,000 pound shares. Allowing for the plough-share "—
I cannot say what that means—
 that would leave a reserve pool of 4,700,000 shares unissued. And that would be enough to pull in around £11 million allowing for a bit of bait "—
we are supplying the bait—
on last night's closing price of 65 per cent., up 4s. 6d. on the bumper dividend and profit news. If Sir Thomas does decide to call on shareholders for some extra cash, they will certainly find it for him. For Hawker's is one of the bluest of Britain's blue chip companies. You can sleep soundly in your beds at night if you hold its shares.
This country's air industry has come to fulfil the rôle which the Royal Navy fulfilled before the war, when enormous

profits were made out of dreadnoughts. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is not interested in dreadnoughts. He is not interested in the Navy. He wants to wipe out the Navy. A new vested interest has arisen, and the industry should be carefully scrutinised during every one of these debates.
The Minister spoke in his introduction about the German tactical air force. Do the Government really think that it is wise to bring German pilots, who shot down British and allied machines in the last war, to train in this country? Even if they do, is it not rather hard on the relatives of people shot down by these same pilots that these pilots should be publicised in this way?
I hold in my hand a picture of two German pilots who are photographed drinking at a bar. The background is a large array of different kinds of bottles and underneath we read:
Old Fighters New Team. Two former Luftwaffe pilots bend elbows with Royal Air Force instructors who will check them out on jets to coach the new German Air Force. Together with a third Luftwaffe trainee they claim to have shot down 500 allied aircraft.
We are so short of pilots that we are now employing the murderers—at least, that is what they were in the last war.

Air Commodore Harvey: Would not the hon. Member agree that it is equally wrong for the Soviet to train pilots of Eastern Germany?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member has got my alignment wrong. I am a pacifist. My indictment is of all military organisations. That is my reply it the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that he has made an excuse for that particular activity of the R.A.F. What guarantee do the Government have that these gentlemen, when trained in modern aircraft, modern jets and modern bombers, will not be used again to shoot down British pilots, or perhaps drop the atomic bomb on this country? How can we be sure that Germany will be on our side in ten or fifteen years? When this sort of publicity is spread throughout the world—and it has been in British and American newspapers—it is an insult to the people still mourning the dead of the last war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might use his influence to prevent this sort of thing being spread about the world in an effort to show that we are making progress.
How can we say that these pilots—and the Germans are now moving towards their own independent line in foreign affairs—will not be manning the new air force, the tactical air force, of a new Nazi Germany in another five or ten years? We shall then notice on the Air Estimates that the aircraft companies will have plenty of propaganda. They will say, "Now that there is a formidable German air force, we have to build still more bombers and still more fighters to be prepared to deliver the nuclear deterrent."

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is a long way from Vote A. He seems to be discussing foreign affairs and the Ministry of Supply Vote and nothing to do with the Air Ministry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understand it, what he is now discussing is the training of German pilots in this country and he is objecting to that on the gound that it will need greater manpower in the Air Force later on. His argument is certainly very remote, but I cannot say that he is quite out of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I shall shortly leave this subject, because it appears to be sensitive, but when one has a photograph of German pilots in R.A.F. uniforms, which is presumably circulated with the permission of the R.A.F., and when some of our money is being spent in this way, I must protest.
We will leave Europe for the present and go to some of the colonial areas and to the rôle of the Royal Air Force in the Colonial Territories. The Secretary of State for Air spoke of the rôle of the Royal Air Force in Malaya. According to the communiqués we hear over the wireless, that rôle is to bomb the bandit hide-outs. What are these hide-outs that the Royal Air Force is out to bomb? I have a description of one of the Royal Air Force targets. It was published in a Welsh paper called the Aberdare Leader by a soldier who saw it. He described a cave which was one of the hide-outs that the Bomber Command bombed. He states:
In the biggest cave we found a bandit foodstore. There were 300 lb. of rice, 90 lb. of brown sugar, some flour, 20 tins of condensed milk, ink, copy books, haircream, perfume, uniforms, oil, and five huge rolls of

material for making uniforms. Stamped on the material was something I wouldn't have believed if I had not seen it, ' Made in Cardiff.'
After years of activity by the Royal Air Force, the bandits are still able to get an enormous amount of material which we have kindly supplied to them. The final paragraph says:
 Giving an idea of the amount of the captured stores, Teddy says in another letter that it took two hundred men two trips to empty the cave. And there were forty photographers on the spot to watch them do it! 
That is the other side of the activities in Malaya. But every year for years and years I have heard from Ministers about the activities of the Royal Air Force in the cold war, and we have heard about how successful they have been in Malaya. As a result of those years of bombing in Malaya the bandits seem to have been able to accumulate a lot of material. I wonder when this bombing in Malaya is to be effective, because we are told that the war is still going on in the jungle and there is no sign of it eventually coming to an end.
I wish to ask about some of the statements made in the Memorandum to the Estimates. There is one which I thoroughly understand. In page 5, paragraph 26, it states:
In the Middle East there has been much activity.
That is obviously correct, but the R.A.F. does not seem to have been very effective in a place like Jordan. When we turn over the page we are told:
 In Jordan, R.A.F. Units will continue to give all the help they can in developing the Royal Jordanian Air Force.
I wonder whether that is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
In a weekend paper I read a description of a squadron, or a certain number of Vampires being handed over ceremoniously to the Jordan Government. The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) saw it. I should like to know whether we are to continue sending Vampires to Jordan or whether we are to ask for them back? Perhaps somebody will explain how much these Vampires cost. In due course, shall we find that they are being used to shoot down aircraft possibly despatched from Cyprus? We should be told what will be the future rôle of the Royal Air Force in Jordan and the Middle East.
Then we go on to Cyprus. The Memorandum states:
 In Cyprus the operational facilities have been heavily taxed but the airfield facilities in the island are being greatly improved by the new base at Akrotiri.
What will be the future of the Royal Air Force in Cyprus? Will we stay their permanently, in face of a hostile population? Will it not be a very difficult situation for the Royal Air Force? Are we to assume that we shall continue spending such sums as this £29 million on barracks and airstrips in Cyprus, when we have not the money to build schools and houses at home?
Paragraph 35 of the Memorandum says:
 During Her Majesty The Queen's visit to Nigeria, a Canberra squadron carried out a training and goodwill tour of the West African Colonies of Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and the Gambia.
I understand that the Canberras are now more or less obsolete, so they were sent to Nigeria to impress the black population, if the Royal Air Force can get this information out of its statistical department, I should like to know exactly how much was spent in sending these Canberras for a quick, two-seconds flypast before Her Majesty? Was that really worth while? Can it be justified on the ground of any military operational necessity? After all, we are a poor country, so we are told. During the Service debates we have had a moratorium upon injunctions to economise, but if the condition of the country is as serious as the Chancellor of the exchequer says it is, I suggest that the Royal Air Force should try to cut down this kind of ceremonial expenditure.
Paragraph 47 refers to an inquiry which was conducted into a certain section of the Air Force. It was carried out by Sir Leslie Hollinghurst—who was Chairman—and its other members included Mr. F. C. Hooper, Managing Director of Schweppes Ltd., and Mr. S. V. Swash, until recently Chairman of F. W. Woolworth & Co. Ltd. Could not this inquiry be extended throughout the Royal Air Force? I am all in favour of Woolworths, because it sells consumption goods. This inquiry resulted in the officer establishment of higher formations in the United Kingdom being decreased by about 15 per cent.
In paragraph 49 we find that a committee, with the same chairman, and also including Mr. Hooper, but excluding the representative of Woolworths, has carried out another investigation. Instead of the Woolworth's representative we have Mr. Crawford, President of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives and Deputy Chairman of the British Productivity Council. He happens to be a very keen and businesslike Scotsman, and I am quite prepared to co-opt him on to my proposed investigating committee.
So we go through this amazing Memorandum, in which we find that:
 Regular recruiting has declined and the strength of regular airmen and airwomen fell from 157,400 at the beginning of April to 142,800 in December and may be down to about 139,500 in March.
I am wondering about the young man who reads the literature published by the R.A.F. and who might read the debates of this House. He discusses in his own mind the possibility of becoming a bomber pilot, and he asks himself, "What will happen to a bomber pilot in the next war?" Everybody knows that immediately war comes the nuclear deterrent will work both ways. The man who is piloting a bomber from this country will know, if he has any imagination, that he is inviting a bomber from the other side to blow his own home and country out of existence. Is it to be wondered at that we cannot get recruits for the R.A.F.?
Exactly the same line of reasoning applies to the Army. The Government are carrying out an enormous campaign to stop inflation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells the British Productivity Council and the organised trade union movement, "Don't be greedy. Be sober." At the same time he is setting an example in the White Paper. The organised trade unions can point to it to justify their wage demands. The White Paper leads us straight to inflation. In the case of the R.A.F., we have too many Ministers chasing too few men.
Finally there is a paragraph which affects us in Scotland. It says:
 A most important commitment now before us is the guided weapons range in the Outer Hebrides. A detailed survey is now in progress and in developing the range we shall do everything possible to minimise the interference with local interests.
How much will that range cost? We have been told in the Scottish newspapers


that it will cost £15 million. How can we justify an expenditure of £15 million on a rocket range in the Outer Hebrides when we cannot afford hospitals, and are cutting down ruthlessly and remorselessly on expenditure for the social services?
I know we shall be told that we have to do this in order to be in line with America. The presence of American Forces is welcomed in this Memorandum. There are some at Prestwick and they have brought a social problem with them as well. My challenge is that this coordination of the R.A.F. with the American Air Force, and the presence of the American Air Force, are making this country dangerous.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That point does not arise on this vote.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. Provision is made in the Estimates for the accommodation of American Forces. We are building houses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a very different matter from the point raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Memorandum says:
Without deducting American aid.
Presumably a very large sum of money has been taken into account in preparing the Estimates. However, I will not labour the point.
I challenge the conception that the presence of the American Air Force has resulted in our greater safety. In his introductory speech last week, the Minister of Defence told us that in the event of a nuclear war we would have 12 million evacuees to deal with. How can it be said that we are protected when we know that this country might be destroyed, and become a mass of atomic rubble a few hours after a declaration of war? I hope that the House will subject these Estimates to the most searching examination. When it does, I have no doubt at all that it will find that at this time of economic strain and economic crisis this sum of £500 million to be spent on the Royal Air Force is too big a burden at the present time.

9.16 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not follow him in his round-the-world tour. As a matter of fact, I could take him up on the point about the American bases in this country. They were authorised by his own party when in office.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Member looks at HANSARD he will see that I challenged it then.

Wing Commander Bullus:: I think that the whole House always finds that the hon. Member's incursions have such consistency as to be really entertaining, and sometimes there is real sincerity there.

Mr. Hughes: Always.

Wing Commander Bullus: Very often he may indulge in blarney, but I recognise that behind it there is a deep sincerity. As I say, I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not follow him in the very many points that he has raised. I do follow him in his tribute to the new team on the Front Bench and I wish it every success in the huge task it has. For my part, I hope that it will be there for many years, even if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire cannot subscribe to that view.
In each post-war year the growing importance of the Royal Air Force among the Armed Forces has been emphasised, but a series of difficulties in the last twelve months in the production and development of necessary aircraft has been, to say the least, disturbing. This is reflected in the considerable under-spending of the Services. I have no intention of attempting to apportion criticism—with many of my hon. Friends who have spoken this evening I think it is the system that is at fault—but I am concerned that we should try to profit from the lessons provided.
Militarily, I think we have been fortunate not to have suffered for our lack of aircraft, and with the constantly changing concept of any possible future war the saving of the moneys is probably a blessing in disguise—as no doubt the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will agree—but we must overhaul and perfect our organisation at once so that the aircraft


come through quickly from the manufacturers. While this country has a fine reputation—almost unequalled, I would say—for top-class aircraft, are we not aiming—at a time when urgency should be the keynote—at too great a perfection in the manufacture of our aircraft? Are not too many persons concerned with making modifications to our aircraft? Should we not learn something from the Americans and, at a certain stage of production, freeze our modifications—with the exception of the safety modifications—so that we might have more rapid delivery? We cannot have unlimited flexibility and the urgent delivery of aircraft. A speed-up may mean losing some of our excessive flexibility. It is paradoxical in our democracy that we need someone in authority with the powers of a dictator to direct the supply of our necessary aircraft. Lord Beaverbrook occupied such a position in the last war.

Mr. Stokes: And made a mess of it.

Wing Commander Bullus: But the planes came through quickly and we owe much to the fact that he was head of that great Department.
We must cut out some of the stages which are causing delay. It is essential that specification, design and production in this country should be organised on the basis which reduces to a minimum any and all possibilities of indecision and delay. This also applies to the speeding up of the production of our guided missiles. One suggestion is that there should be an even closer association of selected Service pilots with new projects from the early stages. Those pilots should fly the aircraft at the same time as they are being flown by the manufacturers' and the Ministry of Supply test pilots. Surely much more could be done in this sphere.
Above all, we must cut out these huge conferences at which anyone with the slightest authority insists on his own pet modification. I understand that the major difficulties of the Hunter have now been overcome and that the destructive power of the aircraft's cannon is without rival. Let us get as many of these aircraft as possible to the squadrons as quickly as possible. Let us get them serviceable, cut out some of the lesser modifications and get them into service at once, because for some years they can be of real use in Fighter Command.
We require urgently a limited but first-class fighter force for what is possibly a limited period. I say "limited period" in view of the ever-changing concept of any possible future war. I feel that we should concentrate rather more on the larger aircraft, for the time will come, with the tailing off of the rearmament programme, when we shall have the problem of maintaining highly skilled labour and specialised design teams at full strength. With this point in mind we must have regard to future markets for our aircraft.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) called attention to Transport Command. It is obvious that we must have a good fleet of transport aircraft, but they are an expensive item and we shall need to exercise imagination in getting the maximum use from them. Could we not hire them to the private charter companies at reasonable and attractive terms on condition that they are available to Transport Command at specified times? The hiring charges could be graded according to the short or lengthy period of notice of requirement. The companies' own aircraft could be added to the pool. This would ensure a fleet of aircraft when required by Transport Command and would also ensure that we should get maximum value from our aircraft and that the public who pay for them would be able to travel in the latest aircraft at what should be reasonable fares. Freight charges, too, should be reasonable.
Could we also develop a scheme of cooperation with industry for the interchange of technicians? At last in this country we are paying real attention to the necessity of training many more technicians. Perhaps the R.A.F. could borrow technicians regularly from industry for a stated period, possibly for five years. Such interchange could be of benefit both to the Service and to industry. One suggestion is that an R.A.F. officer might visit universities and technical schools and colleges trying to secure recruitment to this branch of the Royal Air Force.
Finally, may I ask the Under-Secretary three questions? Will he say something about the progress of the jet training programme for the Royal Air Force? How has the jet Provost behaved in the valuation trials? Those trials have been taking


place and I am sure the House would be interested to know the results. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also give some information about the Miles 100 project.
In most of our military provisions we must work in close association with the Canadians and Americans. Even with a wonderfully equipped and modern Royal Air Force our best and surest deterrent to our would-be adversaries is the close association of the English-speaking world to resist the evils and horrors of a future war.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise this issue with you. Surely the custom of the House is that speeches are to be made and not read? I interrupted the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) but you did not take any notice. Mr. Speaker. I do not blame you for that, but that speech was read and might just as well have been handed to the OFFICIAL REPORT. Surely it is against the rules of debate that we should have to put up with the intolerable practice of hon. Members reading their speeches practically verbatim?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. and gallant Member was speaking from a very full note, not actually reading his speech. Sometimes careful preparation of a speech and its reduction to headings does have the merit of abridging the performance, but the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is quite right; it is quite contrary to the practice of the House for speeches to be read.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of order. Can we have your assurance, Mr. Speaker, that in future you will discourage the reading of speeches.

Mr. Speaker: I always shall do so.

Air Commodore Harvey: As the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has raised this point, does he recall that only last week in the defence debate I observed him reading his speech just as much as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Wing Commander Bullus) was reading? May we have a Ruling. Mr. Speaker, regarding the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Stokes: Before you reply to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I should be glad to hand over my

notes to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). If he can make any sense between my notes and the speech I delivered he will be very lucky.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously I cannot adjudicate on that because I did not have the good fortune of hearing the speech of the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but what I have said about the custom of the House is correct.

9.27 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: In each of the past two years I have been privileged to visit some of the stations of the Royal Air Force and to be an observer at air exercises. It is because of those experiences that I venture to make a few remarks on the Royal Air Force on the occasion of the consideration of the Air Estimates.
I would say at the outset that I found when I was visiting Royal Air Force stations that the efficiency of the Air Force is very high and that the morale of the personnel is excellent. I feel sure that we have a formidable Air Force, which is a deterrent to war. It is a Service which would give a very good account of itself in the dreadful event of another war. I have been pleased to hear it stated during the debate that the Royal Air Force, although the junior Service, has superseded the others in importance in the defence of our island. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), who emphasised this point, might be accused of being biased, having himself served in the Royal Air Force, but I think that if the defences of our island are examined in an unbiased way, it is now generally agreed—I hope it is agreed—that the Air Force plays the most important part in our defences.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one or two problems that I have observed when visiting R.A.F. stations. The first, which was touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North, is the problem of having sufficient technicians in the Service. The hon. and gallant Member put forward the rather original idea of an interchange between the Service and industry, and no doubt the Minister will give it consideration. As an example of the problem, I wonder whether the establishment for


flight mechanics in the Air Force is filled? When I was visiting Air Force stations, officers were naturally and rightly reluctant to reveal the actual figures. I am not sure whether this establishment is filled.
There is no doubt that we have far too few technicians. The Government's proposals for technical education as outlined in the White Paper are a move in the right direction and will eventually help in solving this problem. Of the proposals for technical education, I would merely say in passing that I am sorry the Government did not introduce them earlier and that I doubt whether they have yet gone far enough. Nevertheless, they are a step in the right direction.
The technicians that we have must be shared between industry, on the one hand, and the three Services, on the other. There are competing claims on technical manpower to meet Service and civilian needs. Fortunately, Service life appeals to quite a number of technicians, but disadvantages are felt by some people in Service life. There is, for example, the upheaval of posting. Particularly is this felt by married Service men who have to move their homes and families, and there is the problem of the education of their children. Many of the technicians in civilian life have a sense of greater individual freedom and can establish a permanent home at an earlier age.
To attract technicians in sufficient numbers into the Royal Air Force in the face of these difficulties, the pay must be sufficiently high. The new rates will be helpful, but I warn the Minister that if industry finds itself short of technicians the rates of pay in civilian employment will probably be raised so that industry may have the number of technicians it requires. Consequently, the Minister may find himself short of technicians in the R.A.F. and once more having to put up the pay.
There is this competition for technical manpower between industry and the Services, and this is a matter on which I hope the Minister will keep very careful and constant watch. I hope that he will do that because of the importance to the Air Force of those people who are responsible for the maintenance of aircraft. I was glad to hear in the earlier part of the debate a warm tribute paid to these men

of the Royal Air Force by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) who himself has a distinguished flying record.
I should like to remind the Minister of a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) about the feeling of frustration that exists among some of the N.C.O.s in the Air Force. Some have reached the limit of possible promotion within a comparatively short time, and it is important that these men who cannot hope for further promotion during the remainder of their Service life should have attractive increments of pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury gave an example when he spoke of flight sergeants who had served for sixteen or seventeen years and who had little or no hope of attaining warrant officer rank. I would ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the increments of pay for that type of N.C.O. are adequate.
Another point which I was very pleased my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury raised, and which I should like to underline, concerns the complaint which we have heard about N.A.A.F.I. prices at Air Force stations in Germany. We heard exactly the same complaint when we visited Army units earlier last year. When we spoke to N.A.A.F.I. managers about these complaints we were, of course, told of the additional cost of transport and of insurance. That is understandable but, nevertheless, the wives of Service personnel complain about N.A.A.F.I. prices in Germany. It can be pointed out to them that tobacco and drink are much cheaper there than in this country, but their reply is that it is the husbands who benefit by these cheap prices and the wives have to pay high prices for essentials.
I would suggest that the only way to overcome this difficulty and to remove this grievance is to grant an overseas allowance. I assume that the Government feel that they cannot afford that allowance, otherwise it would have been granted. I believe that in the Army, service in Germany does not count as overseas service, and there is no overseas allowance. In the Air Force I understand that service in Germany counts as overseas service but there is no overseas allowance. It would be no more than just to these families of


Service officers and men on the Continent of Europe if they were granted overseas allowances to meet the higher cost of living which they experience there.
A further point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister is the anxiety that some of the families of Service men abroad feel about the housing difficulties which they will encounter when their service comes to an end. I was told by a number of officers and non-commissioned officers in Germany that they would like to have their names on a local authority's housing list, possibly that of the local authority for the area in which the husband or wife was born, or that for the area chosen because they expected to find employment there. I was informed that many local authorities frown upon the suggestion that Service personnel should be allowed to have their names on a housing list. I should like the Minister to consult with the Minister of Housing and Local Government on whether a suggestion could be made to local authorities that they should accept Service personnel on their housing list while the men are in the Forces.
Those are some of the points which I should like the Minister to be good enough to examine. I had the honour of serving in the Royal Air Force during the war and I am very grateful to the Ministers concerned for allowing me to visit R.A.F. units recently. I find that the R.A.F. today is very different from the one in which I served during the war. I suppose that the differences have come about because of the different and more modern types of aircraft and weapons. The general impression which I have gathered is that while the R.A.F. is certainly not the largest air force in the world, it is a fighting Service which in the quality of its aircraft and of its personnel is second to none.

9.44 p.m.

Sir Norman Hulbert: In addressing the House on air matters, I must, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), make the usual declaration that I have some interest in the aircraft industry as an aircraft constructor. First, I should like to say how very welcome were the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley

(Dr. Broughton). To have a tribute paid to the Royal Air Force by anyone in the House is always a pleasure, but a tribute from the hon. Member is a particular pleasure.
Last week we had a general debate covering all aspects of defence matters and the manufacture of aircraft. Tonight, therefore, I do not propose to say more than a very little about the manufacture or supply of aircraft. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, in his very brilliant speech last week, announced the intention of his Department to cut down the number of categories of aircraft which are to be made. It is a very wise decision. Certainly, so far as military wing aircraft are concerned, it is welcome because the manufacture of those aircraft is a specialised science; and the industry today is not too well off in experts who understand the design and manufacture of helicopters.
Tonight I do not propose to deal with one or two of the earlier speeches. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) devoted a large part of his speech to the daily routine order sent out by a station commander concerning batmen. Possibly there are some station commanders not so wise as others, and there are some hon. Members of this House not so wise as others. Therefore, it is particularly unfortunate that at this time, when everybody is doing everything they can to get Regular recruits for the Royal Air Force, the hon. Gentleman should devote most of his speech to trying to hold up the Service to ridicule.

Mr. de Freitas: It is not holding up the Service to ridicule to make perfectly valid points of maladministration or the wrong approach to a problem. We are elected to come here to make such criticism.

Sir N. Hulbert: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has served as Under-Secretary of State for Air, that this is the annual debate on the Air Estimates. However, I submit that there are more important things to discuss than whether half a dozen airmen do or do not act as batmen at one special function.
Neither do I propose to reply to the world tour of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I should like to assure the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who is no longer


in his place, that I do not propose to read my speech tonight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was handicapped, in making his opening speech, as are many of us in the House in a debate of this nature, by the restrictions of secrecy. There is much that my right hon. Friend could have told, and which I know he would have liked to tell, the House but he was prevented from doing so for security reasons.
I want to devote two or three minutes to the question of manpower, and to ask my hon. Friend, when he replies, to assure us, if he can, that he is satisfied with the intake at Cranwell, Halton and Henlow. If we do not get that intake we shall not have an efficient service in the future. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that enough is being done amongst parents and schoolmasters to bring the attractions of the Royal Air Force to the notice of their children or to their teachers?
I go about the country but I find very little good propaganda emanating from the Air Ministry in an endeavour to get boys to join the Service. I believe that the time of the big poster, "Join the Air Force and see the World" is past, and that a great deal more could be done by personal contact through the schools, the universities and the parents, and, at last but not least, contact through hon. Members of this House.
From time to time the Air Ministry invites parties of hon. Members to visit R.A.F. establishments. The trouble is that my right hon. Friend invites the same party each time. He invites hon. Members whom he knows have some interest in the Royal Air Force or in aviation. I suggest that he should invite hon. Members who, so far as he knows, have never exhibited any interest in the Royal Air Force or in air matters.
Today, as a result of the White Paper dealing with pay increases, the Royal Air Force offers an attractive career to boys and men. I do not think that the present conditions of service have been sufficiently brought to the notice of parents and schools and universities. Today we need the cream of our youth, not only of this country but from the Colonies and Dominions which have not their own Services. All who have read the White Paper dealing with Service pay will agree that the pay code now compares very

favourably with earnings in industry. Besides that, the Service offers a lifelong career with good prospects, pensions at an early age, and an opportunity to learn a trade or profession which still stand men in good stead when they leave the Service and return to civil life.
The Services should be grateful to the members of the Air Council to the Sea Lords and members of the Army Council who have fought the Treasury for years—fighting almost a losing battle—with the object of securing adequate pay for Service men and women. They have had a very considerable success. My only regret is that the new pay code has been deferred for four or six weeks, presumably so that the Treasury could save a paltry £7 million.
Today the Royal Air Force offers young men a wonderful opportunity and many "perks" unobtainable in civilian life, and its advantages should be brought to the notice of parents more than they are. I do not know who is responsible for the Air Ministry publicity or propaganda for recruiting, but, frankly, I do not think very much of it. If it is done inside the Air Ministry, it is a crazy scheme. It would be ludicrous for an officer, no matter how distinguished, running a bomber group suddenly to be brought into the Air Ministry to try to undertake public relations or publicity work of some kind. Propaganda and publicity for the Royal Air Force should be done by experts, money should be spent on it, and it should be done well.
Hon. Members have already spoken about Bomber Command and Fighter Command. I want to say one or two things about two other commands, one of which, Transport Command, was dealt with in a broad sense in the debate on the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay). I do not know what the Air Ministry or the Air Council really think of it does not rank very high, for whereas the other operational commands are commanded by an air chief marshal or an air marshal, an air vice marshal is considered good enough for Transport Command. That is no reflection whatever on the, distinguished officer who is now its air officer commanding-in-chief, but it is an indication that if we are not very careful we


shall find Transport Command as the Cinderella of the Royal Air Force.
We know that it is to Transport Command that the Air Ministry will look to carry our strategic reserve to any part of the world where trouble breaks out. The world position does not seem to be any better, and Transport Command today has not an adequate supply of aircraft. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) that aircraft should be provided from charter companies. Transport Command must have an adequate supply of aircraft of its own, and when it needs additional aircraft, it must obtain them from the operating companies, B.O.A.C. and the others. I am sure we were all depressed to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air say, on 29th February, that it will be about three years before Transport Command gets any Britannias.
I want to say a word about Coastal Command, which is pretty low in the Air Ministry's priorities. Coastal Command is to be a part of the Air Force which will protect our sea lanes in an emergency. The Royal Navy has not the aircraft to do that. We hear from Ministers and Service chiefs that in the event of a thermo-nuclear war 12 million or more people will be evacuated from somewhere to somewhere. We do not know where, but wherever they go they will have to be fed. We cannot feed ourselves. Food has to be brought into the country, and our sea lanes have to be protected, and it is Coastal Command which has to protect them. That is no reflection whatever on the Royal Navy.
There are two other matters to which I want to refer. The Air Estimates show that the Queen's Flight is maintained at the Royal Air Force Station, Benson, by Transport Command. That Flight today consists of out-of-date Vikings and one Heron. I have heard it asked in foreign countries where aircraft of the Queen's Flight have landed, "Why on earth let your Sovereign and the Royal Family fly around in out-of-date box kites?"
I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Queen's Flight, not only for the comfort of Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family, but for the prestige of not only the Air Ministry but the aircraft industry, should be equipped with the latest, best, fastest and more

comfortable aircraft which the great aircraft industry can provide. The cost would be comparatively small, but its prestige value, not only in the Commonwealth to which Her Majesty has made so many air tours, but in foreign countries, would be invaluable.
I hope that when my hon. Friend, whom we all congratulate on his promotion and appointment, replies, he will be able to deal with some of those points which I have raised. I hope they are regarded as being of a serious nature and as meriting the attention of the Air Council. I have put them forward in all seriousness.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I am sure that all the criticisms of the Air Ministry put so well by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert) will be warmly reechoed from this side of the House. I hope that during the debate hon. Members on his side of the House will make equally pertinent criticisms.
We read the White Paper with great interest. The first point which struck me was in connection with what appears on the back page. I suppose that in this case, "…the last shall be first." I note that this White Paper is printed and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and then I see that it can be obtained in London. W.C.2. London, W.1, and London, S.E.1, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol. Belfast—everywhere except Glasgow.
The hon. Member has been talking about propaganda, and the stupid propaganda of the Air Ministry. But here is published a Memorandum which can be obtained almost anywhere, in all the big cities except the City of Glasgow. Then we come to the statement:
or through any bookseller
and so Glasgow comes under "any bookseller." That is adding insult to injury. Glasgow cannot be treated in that way. That is not good enough. We must remember that one of the earliest air squadrons was the City of Glasgow Air Squadron. It is quite wrong to treat the City of Glasgow in the way it has been treated by this Ministry which has been condemned so eloquently by a very able and competent Government backbencher, one who knows what he is talking about, because he and I have this


common interest. That condemnation will be endorsed by the great City of Glasgow to which I am proud to belong.

Sir N. Hulbert: I have not condemned the Air Ministry, I have tendered helpful advice. May I ask the hon. Gentleman if in fact Glasgow is now the capital of Scotland?

Mr. Rankin: No, but it has most of the capital in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had offered helpful advice. I called it very good criticism and we will leave it at that. However, he dealt with the question of propaganda and the fact that the Ministry was failing in putting forward service in the Air Force as an attractive career. I was interested to notice that there is an increase of about £23,500,000 for improvements in the pay, allowances and non-effective benefits of the Service personnel and so on. That is an interesting fact, but I do not know whether it will encourage people to join the Air Force. It is interesting, because evidently those who are in the Air Force were not getting sufficient pay.
That is endorsed by a newspaper, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It is called the Daily Mirror. We are told in today's issue that "day airmen are night bakers." Are we to understand then that the men who join the Royal Air Force have to become night bakers in order to get enough money to carry on their daily life? That is what the Daily Mirror tells us.

Sir Albert Braithwaite: Do not believe anything which the Daily Mirror writes.

Mr. Rankin: I must be guided by what I read.

Sir A. Braithwaite: Why?

Mr. Rankin: Well, most hon. Members have been guided by what they have read in the Memorandum. I am quite sure that if this is not true the Minister will tell us so. It is said that this newspaper has the biggest daily sale on earth. It says that airmen on a certain R.A.F. station are working a 12-hour shift in a bakery and then going straight on duty the following morning. If that is true, is it not a shocking thing? If it is not true, will the Minister tell the Daily Mirror

where it gets off? According to the newspaper, some Air Force men admit that they take "pep" tablets to keep awake. Does the Ministry supply these tablets to the men after they have been working all night in the bakery?

Sir A. Braithwaite: What is the date of the report?

Mr. Rankin: I said it was today. It is right up to date.

Sir A. Braithwaite: How many bakeries are there?

Mr. Rankin: I am making the speech, not the hon. Member. He must wait. The airmen concerned include sergeants and corporals, and some bakery workers say that they are earning up to £12 a week. Has the Under-Secretary heard that? If so, I hope that he will say something about it later.
This is happening at Hornchurch, which, the newspaper says, is an R.A.F. Station in Essex. A Royal Air Force corporal who is married and has children said:
 I've worked at a bakery. Quite a lot of the lads have. Once I did two nights on the trot. It nearly killed me.
What is the use of drawing young men into the Royal Air Force if we are going to put them into the bakeries to work all night? Little wonder that the Ministry cannot get sufficient men to enter the Royal Air Force. The corporal to whom I have referred also said:
I felt terrible during the day time and just couldn't keep awake to do my work.

Mr. Soames: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rankin: I am glad to see the Minister shaking his head. I hope he will correct the statements made by this newspaper, because they are very serious and cannot be regarded as the good type of propaganda which he wants to see the Air Ministry carrying out.
According to the newspaper some reply has been made by an Air Ministry spokesman. Who was the spokesman? Time and again we read in the Press of something having been said by a "Foreign Office spokesman," or a "Ministry spokesman," or a spokesman belonging to some Government Department or another. Who is he? In this case was he speaking authoritatively, and


on behalf of the Minister? Did the Minister tell him to refute what was said in this newspaper? According to the report, the Air Ministry spokesman said:
 Broadly speaking the Air Ministry has no objection to men doing part-time work providing their Service duties do not suffer.
According to the Under-Secretary's spokesman the Ministry has no objection to Royal Air Force men working in night bakeries. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to put the Daily Mirror in its place—I shall be glad to hear him—and to assure us that these startling and alarming accusations are without foundation; and that the Air Ministry spokesman was not speaking with the authority or even with the knowledge of the Minister.
On page 6 of the Memorandum, in paragraph 28, I read:
In Jordan, R.A.F. units will continue to give all the help they can in developing the Royal Jordanian Air Force.
Is that still true since Glubb Pasha has been kicked out? Are we to take it that, despite the fact that Britain, under the expert guidance of the Tory Government, is losing her status and grip in the Middle East, we are still to train and develop the Royal Jordanian Air Force and help them to use more accurately the twelve Vampires which we presented to them a fortnight ago? If so, this is altruism of a very high quality. It would be interesting to know, whether, after the statement which the Prime Minister made at the Dispatch Box today, the Air Ministry is still going to train and develop the Royal Jordanian Air Force.
In paragraph 35, we are told that there has been a certain amount of ceremonial during the year, and that Canberra Squadrons have gone to Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, the Gambia, British Guiana, Trinidad, Barbados, the Bahamas, Antigua, Grenada and St. Kitts. No one will quarrel very violently with ceremonial. I suppose it performs some useful purpose.
At the weekend the French Foreign Minister delivered a speech which must have been very alarming to the Government. It indicated that, some time ago, the French had been invited to take part in certain ceremonies in the Gulf of Siam but declined to have anything to do with them. The French Government said, according to their Foreign Minister, that

the money which was to be consumed would be much better spent in aiding the undeveloped territories of Asia and so seeking to compete with the show that Messrs. Bulganin and Krushchev had been putting on in recent months. Instead of being applied to naval manœuvres the money would be infinitely more useful to France and to the West if it were invested in the development of the underdeveloped parts of the earth.
However useful ceremonial may be, exactly the same type of criticism can be applied to these visits by the Air Force. How much money was consumed, and could it not have been put to a better purpose? I am certain that it could. The Minister would do well to note what the French Foreign Minister has had to say about these useless military displays at a time when a great mass of people are looking, not for further displays of militarism but for more food to eat. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It may be news to hon. Members opposite to know that out of every three people who die today there is one who dies in the Far Eastern part of the world from sheer lack of food—sheer physical hunger. I, therefore, say that the money spent on these displays would be much better spent in seeking to bring a better type of life to those parts of the world.
I hope that I am not seeking to raise needless criticisms, but paragraph 67 of the White Paper which says:
The building of married quarters, both at home and overseas, continues satisfactorily.
scarcely harmonises with paragraph 69, which says:
 The withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, coming on top of the redeployment from the Canal Zone, has increased the accommodation difficulties in the Middle East Command, particularly in Cyprus, and building in the island has been delayed by the disturbances.

Sir A. Braithwaite: No.

Mr. Rankin: That is what the White Paper says and the hon. Member will see, if he refers to the document, that I have read from it correctly. It says:
…building in the island has been delayed by the disturbances,
To me it seems a little difficult to reconcile those two statements. Those difficulties may increase. We hope, for the sake of the country and of those concerned that they will not increase but will


be smoothed out. Quite frankly, it is very difficult to believe that this will happen under the present Government.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) in his efforts in describing, or in his reading out of parts of the Daily Mirror about two-timing and baking and one point or another. Neither do I want to go into the problem of training the Jordan Air Force, which will, I am sure, go on despite the present difficulties that we are having in that country.

Mr. Rankin: However it will be used?

Mr. Yates: It will be used extremely well, I am sure, under the Treaty arrangements.
I have one question to ask and one request to make to the Minister. They both concern The Wrekin division of Shropshire. Does the Air Ministry intend to close down the R.A.F. M.U. at Cosford? If so, I should be very glad to know. Would the Minister consider in future, for the convenience of hon. Members, whether the Air Ministry could inform an hon. Member when a large unit in his division is to be closed down? Constituents ask us about such matters and it is unfortunate if we are unable to tell them anything.
I am grateful for this opportunity to put that question and that request to the Minister.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Sir N. Hulbert) and I have followed one another in these debates for several years. He is concerned about the R.A.F.'s methods of publicity and thinks we have not the right type of people with the right techniques doing the publicity work. Surely the best publicity for the R.A.F. comes from the men who are called up into it. If he wants to find out why the R.A.F. is not obtaining recruits, he need not go to a publicity expert. He should ask those who have been in the R.A.F. for two years and who, despite all the blandishments and all the improvements, decide that they will stay no longer.
If we are to introduce the improvements necessary to get the required num-

ber of volunteers, I suggest that the best and wisest approach is through the people who are called up for two years or who have signed on for three years and who, at the end of their periods of service, refuse to sign on for longer.
One of the most amazing things about the debate, as about all debates on the Estimates, is that if everybody's pet theory were adopted, then despite the colossal amounts which we are already to spend—£479 million—those sums would have to be considerably increased. I listened with amazement to some of the speeches, particularly some from hon. Members opposite, in which demand after demand and suggestion after suggestion was made which, if put into effect, would raise these Estimates to catastrophic dimensions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) was surely justified in bringing before the House the complaints of those who had been called upon to do batmen's duties, because they were the complaints of people who had been in the Service, and if they are not to be listened to, then we are never likely to get the number of recruits we require. Far from it being a most improper and unworthy speech, I thought that my hon. Friend did a service to the R.A.F. in bringing forward the legitimate complaints of those who had from time to time been called upon to serve as batmen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) raised the question of those who are serving in Germany, and indicated that, because of prices there, some were having rather a difficult time. I remember that in the Estimates debate last year, when the independence of Germany was pending, I asked what was to happen to our Forces stationed in Germany when German independence was granted, because at that time our troops, as occupation forces, were receiving certain concessions, and there was a danger that those might be withdrawn when the Germans obtained their independence.
I was assured and the House was assured that that situation would be watched closely and, if the economic position of our troops in the new circumstances was worsened, the War Office would give consideration to granting an overseas allowance. To my amazement


today, my hon. Friend said that the Royal Air Force in Germany was looked upon as having an overseas posting but its members were not getting the overseas allowance. But in the case of the Army, it is a home posting, and the troops do not get an overseas allowance. It would be nice to know how it is that one may have an overseas posting and at the same time be denied the accompanying overseas allowance.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the natural anxiety of those who, having made the Forces their career and whose period of service is about to terminate, find that there will be no home available for them. He asked whether or not the Air Ministry was getting in touch with local authorities in order to get some special consideration for those men, who, after giving service to the country, find they are right at the bottom of the housing list.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could get into touch with the Minister of Housing and Local Government and suggest that he should give local authorities a special subsidy in order that the legitimate grievances of these people could be met. I know it might be argued that that would increase the Estimates, but that is one purpose for which I am quite prepared to see a substantial increase in these Estimates, so as to provide decent homes for these men.

Sir A. Braithwaite: Would the Minister give them priority?

Mr. Fernyhough: What I want is a special allocation and for that special allocation the Minister should give a special subsidy. These men would be in a special category, and there would be no need for them to have priority, because they would be looked after by the Minister when he gave the special subsidy.
Tonight we are discussing a bill of £479 million. As always when we discuss the Service Estimates, we are considering this bill without any relationship to our economic position. This big bill scarcely fits in with the gloomy picture which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was painting a week or ten days ago. He indicated then that it was very necessary, in order to maintain our economic stability, that here, there and everywhere there should not only be cuts, but a slowing up. It

seems that with whatever other Departments the Chancellor may have succeeded, he has certainly not succeeded with the Air Ministry, because the bill now before us is one of the biggest of all the Estimates for the coming year.
I noticed that when the Comet crashed the shares of de Havilland made a catastrophic drop. I should like to know how much Government money was spent on finding out why those two aircraft blew up, and whether any of the costs were charged to de Havilland's. Certainly we have solved that problem, and everybody should be very glad that we have done so, but because we have the profits of de Havilland's will continue to go up; the shares will continue to rise, and I think we are entitled to expect that de Havilland's should have made some contribution.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman's reference to de Havilland's relates, surely, to civilian aircraft, and has nothing to do with the Air Ministry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was about to stop the hon. Gentleman. His present argument does not arise on these Estimates.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the expenditure at the research station at Farnborough not included in these Estimates?

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Fernyhough: At any rate, the money is going to the aircraft industry and we ought to be entitled to find out whether it is making any contribution.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Get on.

Mr. Fernyhough: I will gladly get on, but if there are a lot of interruptions we shall be here for a long time.
Next I wish to refer to the Swift. It must be at least eight months since I first asked the Air Ministry the amount of compensation paid for the cancellation of orders for the Swift; about two months ago I asked a further Question in the House, and still the matter has not been settled. Surely the Ministry ought to be able to tell us how just how much has been paid for the cancellation of that contract. The War Office can tell me what it has paid for the cancellation of its


contracts, and we ought to know from the Air Ministry what it has paid for the cancellation of orders for the Swift.
I am sorry that I was not in my place when the Secretary of State opened this debate, but I have done the next best thing, and that is to read on the tape what he is supposed to have said, from which I gather he made several interesting comments. I welcome the fact that he is now determined to get a better Transport Command, and I hope that it will lead to more comfort for the troops than was enjoyed by those who were packed like cattle when leaving this country very recently to go to Cyprus.

Mr. Soames: I really must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. "Packed like cattle" bears no relation whatsoever to the facts. I have been to see the aircraft, the Shackleton. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever seen one. It is a long, very thin aircraft. I do not pretend that it is comfortable, but those travelling in it are not close together, they are scattered about different parts of the aircraft. They have not all got comfortable seats to sit on, but, while I would have said it is uncomfortable, "packed like cattle" is very far from the truth.

Mr. Fernyhough: According to Press comments, there were three or four times as many troops packed into one aircraft as there would have been had they been ordinary passengers flying with an ordinary civil line.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Why not?

Mr. Fernyhough: Why not? That is the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and then they wonder why the boys do not join up.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: They accept the conditions.

Mr. Fernyhough: They do not accept them. They are forced into it. Fifty per cent. of those boys were National Service men. The hon. Gentleman says they accept the conditions. They have no option; they are compelled to do so.
We are entitled to say that in those circumstances the best possible provision should be made. What was to prevent the Air Ministry from getting hold of one or two passenger planes and taking

those boys to their job with as much comfort as possible? They certainly cannot expect much comfort in Cyprus. The least we could have done was to hire one or two Viscounts or other planes and take them over in comfort.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member will at least agree that if they were not travelling comfortably the journey did not last very long. At the time of Abadan, when the Labour Party was in power, men were packed like sardines in an aircraft carrier on a journey which took nine days.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Fernyhough: I agree that it is a shame. At all times we should consider the comfort of these people. So, as long as they are treated in this manner, how many of these National Service men, when their two years' service expires, will offer to remain in the Forces for the six or more years which the Minister would like them to serve?
The Minister spoke of methods which were being introduced to ensure early warning of attack in the event of war. I wonder how serious the Minister is when he speaks of a reasonable warning. According to the Shields Gazette, a very reliable newspaper, Dr. Gordon Shrum, a rocket expert, told the annual convention of the International North West Aviation Council that there would be
 no escaping from the inter-continental guided missile bombs of the future—a ' future' only five years distant. A guided missile could be developed that would cover 3,000 to 4,000 miles in an hour and drop a hydrogen bomb within 100 yards of its target. I also read only a matter of weeks ago that Air Vice-Marshal K. M. Guthrie, President of the Royal Canadian Air Force Association, speaking in Quebec on 18th January, said
 It is not necessary for the enemy to bomb the principal cities in a country to destroy that nation. A few bombs strategically dropped would suffice to wipe out all form of life. Everyone would die from radioactive particles.
Those two men should know what they are talking about. In the light of what they say, it seems to me that the Minister, in his statement, refused to face realities. Certainly it is refusing to face realities to believe that in a war of that kind there will be the slightest possibility of evacuating to safety 12 million people. Of all the nonsense that has been talked in this House for a long time, the greatest


was when the Minister of Defence talked about evacuating 12 million people in a nuclear war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet told us where they would go, but most of us know, and most of us will be going with them.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It depends which way the hon. Gentleman is going.

Mr. Fernyhough: According to Dr. Shorm, we should get six minutes' warning of an H-bomb raid. That, again, is important in the nuclear age. I suggest that if these are the forecasts of the experts, these men who are devoting their lives to it, much of what we have been discussing this afternoon is about as relative to the situation in which we are living as would be bows and arrows.
However, I am glad to say that light is beginning to dawn in the darkest places, and I shall call to my aid the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who, speaking in January this year to the Northern Area Conservative Women's Advisory Committee, said that he
 saw the principal threat from the Communists as lying in the fields of political subversion and economic penetration.
I have always taken that line.
I have never believed that the Communists would wage a war of submarines and planes and bombs and guns and tanks and the rest of that sort of paraphernalia. I have always believed that they saw it as a struggle for men's minds rather than for men's bodies, and they will win it through men's stomachs, because if during the last six years we had devoted one-tenth of this expenditure to the development of the backward areas and to filling empty bellies, we should not have been facing, in the Middle East and Asia and Africa today, the difficulties and problems with which we are confronted. I am positive that if we are to win the great struggle being waged now between East and West, we shall do so only by shifting a substantial part of our present expenditure from military preparations to social and economic purposes.
This year, of course, there is no hope of that happening, but as the policy of the gentlemen in the Kremlin begins to unfold, I think we shall come to realise that that is where the challenge must be met. I hope that when that time comes we shall gladly pass for that purpose

£500 million with the same readiness as we are passing it tonight for the purpose of military preparations.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: I want to examine the question of the nuclear deterrent which figures so prominently in the Air Estimates and in the Defence White Paper in connection with our strategy, and particularly in connection with the rôle of the Royal Air Force. I do so because I believe that the nuclear deterrent—the so-called great deterrent—is in serious danger of becoming a great cliché. It is a concept which is used loosely and glibly to cover several different meanings and to make easy and, I believe, false and dangerous assumptions in a good many cases.
The Memorandum on the Air Estimates states:
As explained in the Statement on Defence, 1956…the foundation of our strategy remains to build and maintain, in conjunction with our American allies, an effective nuclear deterrent. Air defences are an essential complement to the deterrent.
The Defence White Paper says very much the same thing, but I want to emphasise it:
The primary task of the Air Force continues to be the build up of the V Bomber Force and its associated stock of nuclear weapons, which together will provide our main contribution to the Allied deterrent.
As currently used, the word "deterrent" is a blanket term covering three different ideas. The first is the straightforward idea that by piling up enough nuclear weapons we shall make the other fellow afraid of starting a war and think twice before committing aggression. The second concept slides over into the idea of effective defence in case of war, which is also dealt with in the Air Estimates Memorandum and the Defence White Paper. The third is that of using the threat of nuclear war to hold the ring, to prevent interference with a little war that may have been started or sustained as a result of our using conventional arms in order to deal with what we decide is Communist infiltration or subversion in some other country.
As to the first use, the idea that by piling up hydrogen bombs we can deter, in the sense of preventing a war, the first question to ask is: can we deter an accident? Can we, by piling up hydro-


gen bombs, prevent a war started by inadvertence? That is a very serious danger.
I would recall a leader in The Times of 28th November last, saying that the nuclear weapons
…with all their horror, have made a great war all but unthinkable, even if anyone were mad enough to plan one…Yet the risks of an accident, or a miscalculation, or a rash move, remain fearful.
There are also, of course, the famous words of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, speaking at the Royal United Services Institution on 21st October, 1954, when he said that at any moment either side, in trying to win the cold war, might, without meaning to, start a world war that neither side wanted. What that means has been illustrated graphically by Mr. Dulles' famous metaphor of mastering the art of going to the brink of war without getting into war, which is all very well as long as one can refrain from tumbling over. The history of the balance of power and arms races, however, suggests that sooner or later somebody does tumble over, that, in fact, it is part of the statecraft of the balance of power that it is impossible to preserve peace permanently and that sooner or later there will be a war.
I pass from the idea of the hydrogen bomb as a preventive of war, which is invalidated by the danger of war coming by accident, to the second idea. Can one deter fear? Supposing that, in fact, the main motive on both sides is fear, that neither side wants a war and is afraid that the other fellow is going to attack it, will the piling up of arms on both sides diminish that fear or aggravate the fear and the suspicion accompanying it?
One may recall Lord Grey's memoirs "Twenty-five Years," in which he summed up the results and lessons of the arms race that ended in the First World War and said that the piling up of armaments in itself ultimately made war inevitable. It brought not a sense of strength and confidence but fear and suspicion, fear of the other fellow's growing strength. Earl Attlee, on 14th March last year in this House likewise made the point that fear was the main driving force behind the foreign policy of both sides.
A far more striking testimony to the same effect was made by General Douglas MacArthur in January last year. He said:
The agony of the cold war is kept alive by two great illusions. The one, a complete belief on the part of the Soviet world that the capitalist countries are preparing to attack them; that sooner or later we intend to strike. And the other, a complete belief on the part of the capitalist countries that the Soviets are preparing to attack us; that sooner or later they intend to strike, Both are wrong. Each side, so far as the masses are concerned, is equally desirous of peace. For either side war with the other would mean nothing but disaster. Both equally dread it.
He went on to say, and this has already been quoted in the debate, that the piling up of arms on both sides may in the end precipitate a war by what he called "spontaneous combustion." That brings us back to the point about a war starting by accident.
I believe that in the first sense in which it is used this term "deterrent" is a snare and a delusion. We cannot deter an accident. So long as we rely on an arms race to get peace, peace is constantly at the mercy of an incident. Sooner or later it is certain to be destroyed by inadvertence, by someone like Mr. Dulles peacefully playing Russian roulette—or should I say anti-Russian roulette—with hydrogen bombs. The "deterrent" creates fear and suspicion and a sense of insecurity. We cannot prevent a war by a race in hydrogen bombs. We have to do something else, or something more than that.
Let us take the second meaning of this word, "deterrent" where it slides over into the concept of effective defence. Here again the Statement on Defence suggests that such a defence is possible in the case of this country. It states:
For some time to come the manned fighter must continue to provide the backbone of our Air Defence system. The fire power and lethality of fighter aircraft will be markedly increased by equipping them with air-to-air guided missiles…Although manned fighter aircraft and their weapons will improve, the surface-to-air guided weapon may well in time play a predominant part in Air Defence. A production order has been placed for these weapons for trials with the Air Defence system. Because of the area of destruction of nuclear weapons close defence of vulnerable areas is an outmoded concept. Our aim is a guided weapons system which can break up enemy attacks before they penetrate over the coastline and which can be integrated with our fighter defences.


The Secretary of State for Air emphasised the point that it is no use shooting down over this country an aircraft equipped with a nuclear weapon, and that it would have to be shot down well out over the sea. In that connection he emphasised the importance of defence in depth and in particular the importance of holding the lines occupied by N.A.T.O. in Europe. General Gruenther has reported, however, that he cannot hold the lines with the forces available. That was a point brought out during the debate on the Army Estimates.
In any case, there already exists a medium-range rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and that can cover the full distance between this country and Eastern and Central Europe. That seems to cancel out defence in depth in one step. I do not see why the possibility of robot planes carrying nuclear warheads, and if necessary guided by a piloted plane somewhere in the rear—experiments on those lines have been tried—should not be launched by the enemy, very meanly no doubt, at a time when the wind is blowing our way, and if they were shot down at 40,000 or 50,000 feet over the sea I do not see what is to prevent the radio-active fall out from sweeping over this country.
In fact, I believe that this whole paraphernalia of defence, the pretence that we can evacuate 12 million people goodness knows where, and that we can put up any kind of effective defence once a war with nuclear weapons breaks out, is sheer make-believe and utterly unreal. I would recall what I have already mentioned in connection with the Army Estimates, namely, the report of the air manoeuvres held by N.A.T.O. last summer. These manoeuvres were held to test the possibility of defence against a full-scale aerial attack with nuclear weapons. It was calculated that in such a case the war would be short and horrible, and that so far as we were concerned it would be all over in forty-eight hours. In other words, either we prevent a war or we are wiped out, after the war starts, in a few hours or at most a few days. There is really no other alternative. And a balance of power sustained by a race in hydrogen bombs will not prevent a war; it will sooner or later make war inevitable.
So much for two of the three meanings of "deterrent" in nuclear strategy. The

third meaning is even more dangerous, namely, the threat of nuclear war to hold the ring and prevent interference by China or the Soviet Union while we wage little wars with conventional arms, or otherwise intervene by armed force in the internal affairs of some country in South-East Asia or the Middle East which we consider to be menaced by Communist subversion—which means that it is menaced by social revolution or some kind of internal upheaval—or carry out the policies to which we are committed on paper, to help liberate some East European country from its existing régime.
Since nuclear strategy is carried out in close association with the United States, and the Government have already publicly committed themselves to it, this third interpretation means that we should also be involved in the American threat to use the nuclear weapon if China should try to finish its civil war by recovering possession of the Chinese islands of Quemoy, Matsu and Formosa, now held by the Americans or their protégés.
This is the most dangerous meaning of the term, because it suggests a readiness to resort to nuclear weapons in order to back armed intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. This is the way in which N.A.T.O. has been interpreted by the Foreign Secretary, on 12th December last; it is the way in which Article 4 of the N.A.T.O. Treaty is interpreted in connection with interference in the internal affairs of other countries where we believe there is Communist infiltration or subversion. Article 5 of the Bagdad Pact, Article 4 of S.E.A.T.O. and the Defence White Papers of last year and this, all tie us down clearly to this use of the nuclear weapon in order to threaten a nuclear war to back our dabbling in little wars for the purposes mentioned.
For those three reasons I reject and repudiate the whole conception of the deterrent, in all three ways in which the term is used in the Defence White Papers and the discussions which have taken place on our defence and foreign policies.
I should also like to question our own position in relation to this nuclear strategy. The Defence White Paper, for instance, says that our contribution to the Allied deterrents must be:
commensurate with our standing as a world Power.


Frankly, I think there is bitter irony about this statement, at the present time, when our whole policy of building up positions of strength is collapsing in the Middle East, has disappeared in the Far East, and is crumbling in Europe. It is far more realistic to say, as Earl Attlee said on 18th November, 1946:
No one is foolish enough to suppose that this country can measure up in armaments either against Soviet Russia or the United States of America."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 586.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I have not heard the whole of the hon. Member's speech, but he now appears to be dealing with a far wider issue than those issues which are before the House.

Mr. Zilliacus: I am coming back, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the question of the hydrogen bomb, which is the centre of our nuclear strategy.
I was saying that Britain, by making a handful of H-bombs against the trainloads in the United States and the truckloads in the Soviet Union, cannot, as the White Paper suggests, qualify for being treated on an equal footing as a world Power with those other two States. To think otherwise is a tragic delusion, and only underlines and emphasises the fact that if we are to be tested by our capacity to manufacture or resist hydrogen bombs, we are literally a third-rate Power; if our capacity to manufacture them, and to resist attack by nuclear weapons is to be the criterion, then we are mortally vulnerable and hopelessly inferior.
But why make that the criterion? Why not establish our position in the world by formulating our own terms for making peace, through re-valorising and implementing the machinery of the United Nations in Europe and in the Middle and Far East? We are closely associated in nuclear strategy with the United States—but that cuts both ways. In the New York Herald-Tribune recently there was an article by the two crack Washington correspondents, the Alsops, expressing alarm as to what might happen to this nuclear strategy association if Britain suffered an economic collapse, which it was feared might happen because of events in the Middle East depriving us of oil, and which might, they said, mean the advent to power of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr.

Bevan). This might, they believed, be followed by a collapse of the nuclear strategy association between this country—which would be followed by France—and the United States. This would deprive the United States Air Force of eighty per cent. of its striking power since it could not have its bases in this country or Western Europe.
We cannot claim equality by our association with the United States in nuclear strategy. But if we linked the continuation of that association with agreement on proposals for settlement, that is, made joint defence commitments conditional upon a joint policy for making peace, we should again become a first-class factor in world affairs, and should be listened to, not only in matters of strategy, but also in matters of how to end this mortally dangerous arms race by political agreement with the other side.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: In this debate there has not, I feel, been a sense of realisation of the enormous and costly expenditure which we are embarking upon and which we continue to embark upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) has just referred to the effect of this expenditure in its attempts to deter by fear, and I cannot but think that if we continue at this rate year after year, building up an air defence which is costing, according to the White Paper, £479,500,000, then surely we shall reach the position where sooner or later our own people, as well as those in Europe, will become neurotics under this fear.
I do not want to detain the House for long, but I should like to mention some items of expenditure in the Memorandum which do somewhat concern me. Reference has been made to the American bases, and I think it was the hon. Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) who mentioned as justification for them the fact that it was under a Labour Government that they were established. He mentioned that as though the fact that they were established under a Labour Government made it right that they should be continued now. Some of us—my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself included—did not agree at the time with that step being taken.
My feelings were somewhat similar to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who referred on a number of occasions to the danger there was to our country when used as an aircraft carrier. On 28th March, 1950, he told the House:
We must not forget that by creating the American atom bomb base in East Anglia we have made ourselves the target, and perhaps, the bull's eye of a Soviet attack. On 28th March last year I said in Parliament if, for instance, the United States had a stock-pile of 1,000 atomic bombs—I take the figures as an illustration merely, I have no knowledge of any sort or kind of what they have—and Russia had 50, and we got those 50 fearful experiences far beyond anything we have ever endured would be our lot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February. 1951; Vol. 484. c. 630.]
During the debate on the Army Estimates I pointed out that the Manchester Guardian had recently stated that the Americans had nuclear material sufficient for 32,000 bombs and Russia had the material for 10,000, while we had sufficient material to make enough bombs to blast every city off the face of the earth, and probably every large town as well.
Paragraph 7 of the Memorandum says:
About £24,000,000 is included for works for the United States Forces, including £3,500,000 for houses to be financed under the arrangements set out in the Supplementary Estimate for 1955–56. Provision is made for the recovery of about £19,000,000 as the United States contribution towards costs incurred on their behalf.
Mention has been made of the generosity of the United States, but quite frankly I cannot see why we should have to contribute a sum as large as that. I speak as the representative of a city which has more than 60,000 families in need of houses, and I do not know how we shall ever solve the country's housing problem so long as we continue with this kind of expenditure, which somehow or other we have come to accept almost as a matter of course. I object to such expenditure, and I resent that we should agree to its continuation.
The Minister, in his opening speech, did not give me much assurance on how, through the strategy that he is advancing, we are to be secure. One of my hon. Friends referred to a remark the Minister made, and which I noted. He said that in the nuclear age it is no use shooting down bombers over one's own country.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us where we ought to shoot them down.

Hon. Members: Over the North Sea.

Mr. Yates: If that is done what happens if the wind is blowing in our direction?
The late Stanley Baldwin said the bomber would always get through. That brought the argument, "We have our defences." Nowadays only one or two bombers need to get through. We have no means to shoot them down if they get over this country. It seems to me to be a fatal policy, and it is no use trying to convince the people that there is safety in it. The question has also been raised where 12 million of the population are to be evacuated to, especially in view of the effect of the bomb explosion in March last year. The damage and loss of life which would have resulted over perhaps 170 or 190 miles would have made it impossible to carry out any kind of evacuation plan.
If the Minister does not entirely go to sleep, I should like him to take note of these points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) raised the question of manpower and its waste, and the putting of square pegs into round holes. I visited Cardington Camp, a reception centre, and I was not impressed by the reception which I received. I took with me a representative of the Electrical Trades Union, who had complained that the selection was not fair. After that visit and after talking to the group captain there, I would question whether we are justified in increasing the group captain's salary to the point suggested in the salary increases.
Men were at that camp for a week to be fitted with uniforms and to be more or less graded and selected. The first thing I saw at the camp was a number of Royal Air Force men standing on oak chairs cleaning windows. I asked why they were doing it. I was told, "Of course, they only have a week here, and it is difficult to find sufficient work for them to do." I then asked, "Why on earth should they be standing on new oak chairs in order to clean windows round the hut? "Nobody could give me a satisfactory answer to that question. I can only suppose that there were no ladders or steps in the place.
I was certainly impressed by the great attention given to men desiring to go into


the various trades, but I was very surprised to find that many apprentice electricians in civilian life—some of whom had been deferred until the age of 21—were not considered suitable to become electricians in the Royal Air Force.
I examined the method of selection, and found that at least 50 per cent. of those who passed the test and were accepted could not be placed as electricians. I also learned the extraordinary fact that the number of men wanted for the various trades changed from week to week. That state of affairs creates dissatisfaction among those who sign on for longer periods. When they find that they cannot get into their chosen trade, they feel that they have had an unfair deal.
Though I think it objectionable that men should be asked to perform domestic duties, I must say that when I visited the Bridgnorth Camp I did not find that the duties generally of batmen were unpopular. Strange as it may sound, I was told of a National Service man who knocked on the selection officer's door one morning and said, "Sir, I wish to become a Regular." That was a bit of a shock to start with, but when the officer asked him what he wanted to be, the man replied, "I wish to be a batman." The officer said to him, "You want to become a Regular in the R.A.F. and you wish to be a batman. Why do you want to be a batman?". Back came the reply, "I have read in the papers about batmen being dressed up in wigs. I am very fond of theatricals, and I wish to become a batman." Generally speaking, the men like performing the duties of a batman, though I am not suggesting that they enjoy wearing wigs.

Mr. Fernyhough: Minding babies.

Mr. Yates: No, not minding babies. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is getting—

Mr. Fernyhough: I had a batman stationed with me and he became a very close friend of mine. I know what he thought about some of the duties he was compelled to perform.

Mr. Yates: If my hon. Friend had a batman stationed with him, I hope that h, served him very well.
I only want to make this point because it is no use our being unfair. We cannot

reduce National Service by cutting out duties which have to be performed by somebody anyhow. It is most important to try to put men into the right jobs. At the camp at Bridgnorth I found a sheet metal worker from Glasgow who is now a typist, a bricklayer from Birmingham who is now a gunner—as a bricklayer he had been deferred until he was 21 years of age—and another bricklayer who was a cook.
It is most extraordinary that, especially in the R.A.F., so many bricklayers become cooks. One airman complained to me about the food. He showed me some kind of sloppy mixture and asked, "What do you think about that?" I replied that it did not look very appetising, and he said, "I think it was prepared by one of the bricklayers in the cookhouse." There is a lot of building in progress in the Army. I do not know about the position in the R.A.F., but I do not understand why so many bricklayers are made into cooks. Surely, we should be able to find them work for which they have been trained and which, of course, would be very profitable. I should like the Minister to consider this question of putting men into the right jobs.
I turn to the subject of wages. It was, of course, necessary that the men should be given better wages; but the National Service man is given an increase of only 6d. a day. When one considers the position of the National Service man one must agree that that is not very much of an improvement. When one considers the wages of the higher ranks in the R.A.F., it seems that the higher one goes the better pay one gets. A group captain. such as the one to whom I have referred, starts at £5 a day, which is an increase of £1 from £4 a day. A group captain with six years' service in that rank has an increase from £4 9s. to £5 15s. It is a little unfair that the man at the bottom should always be in such a poor position.
The Minister seems to be amused. I suppose that to him it is amusing that the ordinary National Service man should get an increase of only 6d. a day.

Sir A. Braithwaite: The other man is a Regular, spending his whole life in the Service.

Mr. Yates: By giving one man an increase of only 6d. and the other an increase of £1, we do not make the former more happy in the Service.

Mr. W. Yates: By the hon. Gentleman's analogy, should the porter get the same wage as the engine driver?

Mr. V. Yates: I am bound to say that there are differentials, but not quite to that extent.
If ever the principle:
To him that hath shall be given
could be applied, it would be applicable to the small increase that is now proposed.
Mention has been made of time wasting. I support my hon. Friend who asked for a further inquiry into the nature of discipline and duties. In my opinion that aspect is just as bad in the Royal Air Force as in the Army.
I wish to ask a question about health in the Royal Air Force. I made reference to this matter when we were discussing the Army Estimates, but I did not then quote an article which appeared in the British Medical Journal. On 6th August last, that journal referred to the large number of discharges from the Army on psychiatric grounds, and in the same article there was a reference to the R.A.F. The article said:
In the Royal Air Force in 1951 the picture is somewhat different, but the highest place for invalidings out was again what is described as mental disorder, being 21 per cent. of total invalidings.
The article went on to state:
In the Women's Royal Air Force mental disorder accounted for 43 per cent. of the final invalidings.
I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing about that, and what is the cause of that mental disorder, I know that in the Army there is a great deal of explanation, but I am not sure of the cause in the Royal Air Force.
I should like these points to be carefully considered by the Secretary of State, but it would be almost impossible to expect the present Secretary of State or the Government to appreciate that the colossal expenditure now being supported and continued is a danger to the cause of peace. I believe that it is, and that sooner or later we shall come either to a serious conflagration or we shall be obliged to adopt a diplomacy which will scale down armaments and not build them up to a point where we create fear and, therefore, the conditions, of a possible very serious world conflict again.
I do not believe that the House has appreciated the serious nature of this expenditure, but we shall do so in course of time. I hope, therefore, that there will be further examination. If we must have armaments—if the Government feel they must have nuclear bombs and bombers to drop these horrible weapons upon the world and feel that is the only way to secure peace—at least they can examine some of the expenditure which is causing such dissatisfaction among those who are having to serve and particularly among the civilian population.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: I want to speak only briefly at this late hour. I listened to the Secretary of State, who gave us a great deal of detail about the progress of new bombers, made references to the increase in pay and so forth, and tried to paint a nice picture. That is all very well, but I look at the problem in this way—does all that provide a solution to our troubles? Quite frankly, I do not think that it is the answer at all. I do not say we can do without security forces—we are bound to have them in this uncertain world—but I am concerned with the question of the amount we spend.
The importance of our Air Force—and this was stressed by the Minister—in a future war appears to me to be as the main means of retaliation. The Air Force as part of our defence force means just that. In my opinion, all that is said about warlike action in the future is pure speculation. We do not know; we can only speculate, and upon such speculations we try to plan, but if anything happens, of course, what we have planned for may be quite out of date by then. What is true is that those countries which have the speediest and most destructive means of combat, whilst they may not win, will certainly cause most damage to life, property, towns, cities, animal life, vegetation and so on. To assess the air power and nuclear weapons of other countries is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
We are budgeting now for a sum of £479 million. Last Thursday and today we shall have budgeted for nearly £1,000 million, £20 per head of the population. That is a colossal sum, and if such sums are considered necessary, then it is time we considered the gigantic sum neces-


sary to provide a solution so as to obtain peace and utilise the international machinery which has been established. In my opinion, that is just what we are not doing, yet that is the only way in which we shall go forward. We must at some stage remove the political asperities which divide the nations, and we must make a proper approach on the basis of understanding through negotiation. There is no other answer, in view of these extraordinary sums that we are called upon to expend year after year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now going into the sphere of foreign affairs and is not dealing with the Army Estimates.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The debate is on the Air Estimates.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What I said was that the hon. Gentleman was dealing with foreign affairs rather than the Air Estimates.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you said "Army Estimates."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I beg pardon. I meant the Air Estimates.

Mr. Craddock: I mentioned that the expenditure which we approved last Thursday and which we are asked to approve today amounted to a grand total of £1,000 million, a considerable sum of money. I cannot see that there was anything wrong, or that I was going too far, in making that suggestion.
I wish, if I may, to mention an address given over the air by Earl Russell in January of last year, when he was talking about the destructiveness of the H-bomb. He said that it was time that mankind stopped this quarrelling and got down to the task of reaching agreement by understanding, because if we had a third world war there would be no return; it would be devastation for combatants and neutrals alike.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the Air Estimates. This debate is concerned with the Air Estimates, and not with these general issues.

Mr. Craddock: I believe that the R.A.F. is associated with bombs and bombers.
It has been said that 6,000 bombs have already been produced, 4,000 by the U.S.A. and 2,000 by the U.S.S.R. We have now started producing the H.-bomb when already there were enough in the world to destroy the whole of mankind and perhaps the universe as well. This is a very serious situation, and there is no answer to the problem in the Estimates or in the tremendous expenditure which we are undertaking. Therefore, we must do something other than try to build forces to match a strength which we cannot possibly attain. We can do it only in association with other Powers.
Incidentally, I notice that West Germany is to provide £9,500,000 of the £479 million Estimates, but it appears to me that the Germans have not agreed to make that payment. That is an extraordinary situation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell), I visited one or two R.A.F. camps last autumn. I found a certain amount of dissatisfaction with pay and conditions among the lower ranks. Something more should be done to provide accommodation for people in the R.A.F. I was surprised that the Minister said in his opening speech that a good deal had been done.
I have had correspondence recently from Gibraltar and from Gloucester complaining of poor accommodation. People in Gloucester are having to pay £4, £5 and £6 a week for temporary accommodation because the R.A.F. has not made provision for them. That is a great deal of money for R.A.F. men to pay for accommodating their families, and the payment continues for month after month. I ask the Minister to consider the matter further, because the picture is not as he described it today. It is a serious matter, and only this week I have had further complaints.
I found that at Leeming Bar the only cover which R.A.F. men had was a ground sheet. That is disgraceful. The Ministry should provide mackintoshes for them. People who are interested in the Forces talk about men being properly dressed. We hear of how raw recruits are kept in camp for three or four weeks until they have learned how to dress, yet here are men who are provided with ground sheets only. One group captain informed me that he had succeeded in getting pro-


vision made for those on guard duties. But the people in Whitehall seem to me to be asleep, because although these mackintoshes can be obtained, it seems to depend on who asks for them and what pull he has. Matters should not be left like that.
I want now to talk for a moment about an unfortunate accident which happened at Pembroke Dock on 3rd March, 1954. I am sorry that I have not given the Under-Secretary of State for Air notice of this, but it has been the subject of correspondence between us. A constituent of mine, Sergeant Barraclough, was in a Sunderland flying boat which came down in the water after it had been airborne for only twenty-six seconds, and most of the men in it, including this man, lost their lives. Since then his mother approached me about this matter.
I cannot understand why it was possible for a boatman, some distance away, to row his boat to the Sunderland and collect three men, whereas a pinnace, a special rescue launch, was not able to go to the rescue of these men to save their lives and also the machine. I find that an order was given—

Mr. Soames: I see that the hon. Gentleman has the correspondence with him. My memory of the case does not tally with what he has said. The hon. Gentleman said that a private individual had rowed his boat. Is he sure that it was a rowing boat?

Mr. Craddock: A boatman with a boat—he did not row it—went to the Sunderland and collected three of the men.
It seems to me that nothing really effective was done to save the lives of these men, and in my opinion they ought to have been saved. Sergeant Barraclough was found drowned in the tail of the Sunderland. This matter ought to be cleared up to ensure that there is adequate protection and machinery for rescuing people who meet with such unfortunate accidents. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look further into this matter because it appears to me that the mother of this man is still dissatisfied with the replies which she has received from the Minister.
In passing, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind for the future the suggestion that relatives invited to attend an inquest

of a man in the Forces should not have to pay their fares? In the case that I have just detailed, fares amounting to £7 had to be paid. Provision should be made for that purpose.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: A number of my hon. Friends who have spoken have expressed their anxieties about the general foreign policy and defence policy of this Government, and when one looks around the world at present there is good reason for some of that anxiety. I expressed my own feelings on the general policy of this Government in the defence debate, and I stand by everything I said on that occasion. Today we are discussing the narrower point of the execution of that policy, and I want to see to what extent the present Government and the Air Ministry are carrying out that policy efficiently and economically.
First, it has already been noted that the Under-Secretary of State has made his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Congratulations have been offered to him, and I should like to add mine. Perhaps I might also say that it is gratifying to find two Ministers answering for the Air Ministry in this House, which is a change from the experience of recent years.
I thought that the Secretary of State had a very gentle passage today, which was something of a change for him after his experience in the defence debate. He had to offer one apology which we much appreciated. I must say I thought it was rather a merited apology. I do not want to press the point in view of the apology that was made, but to say anything which could be construed as indicating that the Royal Air Force was non-operational when the Conservative Government took over responsibility for it was going very far indeed. It comes particularly badly from a representative of the present Government, for the fact of the matter is that since they have been in charge of our affairs our position, in relation to others, has worsened and not improved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) made a most telling point about the deployment of our resources in scientific manpower, not only in this country but in the N.A.T.O. countries as a whole. He pointed out that we have a shortage of scientific and technological manpower, and the position of the West, including the United States, when


we compare it with the information that we have about the U.S.S.R., really makes it essential that we should take every possible step to get the most efficient deployment of such resources of technological manpower as we have at our disposal.
To that extent, and with that in mind, it seems that we must look again at the question of who shall make what as between the United States and ourselves. It is a most curious and sometimes amusing thing that when we discuss the possibility of our using American equipment, we, who are supposed to be the mature partners in these matters, are much more conscious of prestige and are much more touchy about these things than are our American friends.
After all, if we are thinking that they may conceivably be able to make some things better than we can, it is a fact that they are already producing under licence a number of our aero-engines, and today we were reminded of the fact that they are operating, under a different name, the Canberra bomber. Therefore, it does not after all seem a very revolutionary thing to suggest that there are some items of equipment, more than we have at present agreed upon, which might well be made on the other side of the Atlantic, and so enable us to conserve or concentrate the resources that we have here.
On the other hand, I must say that it is very difficult for hon. Members, without a good deal more information than we already have, to say what items this country should concentrate upon, whether upon fighters, bombers, missiles or what. In my view, there are very few hon. Members who are really in possession of enough information to enable them to make a proper appreciation of these things.
Perhaps I might at this point say a word or two about information. This is a matter which has been a bone of contention for a long time. I remember that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite made a great point of this when they were on the Opposition benches. If anything, we get less information now than we did then. The position so far as Members of Parliament are concerned, is intolerable. In the defence debate reference was made to the fact that hon. Members who have some connection with the Press find it easier to get information

in connection with their work for newspapers than in connection with their work as Members of Parliament.
There is a great deal of information about our aircraft—I have a stack of it—which is classified and which is never given in this House. Yet it is entrusted to journalists. They have their own censorship arrangements, and in the main they respect the trust reposed in them. I believe that Admiral Thompson, chairman of the voluntary Press censorship committee is asking again that the members of the Press should voluntarily draw up some code of behaviour or rules of censorship with regard to the information which they publish on guided missiles. They have a good deal of information but it is not published. I say again, seriously, that some way should be found of giving a good deal more information on some of these matters to Members of Parliament than is now given.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), in a way which I thought at the time was unfortunate—though I am sure he did not mean it to be so—mentioned the private invitation which he had extended to me to fly with him in the Victor bomber. He said that the Minister of Supply thought it was a good idea, but later the security advice which he received was such that it was considered that no exception could be made for me as a Member of Parliament to have that experience. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has flown in the machine, but the Parliamentary representative for Uxbridge is not allowed to fly.
I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman went as a member of his firm, and there are probably hundreds of others in his firm who have the same information. But if the information could be entrusted to members of the firm, why could it not be entrusted to Members of Parliament? I think that when we give these security people the responsibility for drawing up regulations, they inevitably emphasise the importance of their own craft. I suggest that hon. Members should begin to think about these matters and seek ways and means of informing themselves more fully about them.
What we have heard today from the Secretary of State, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, contained nothing new. Even the phraseology was the same


as that used last year. Anyone who has read the Memorandum which accompanied the Estimates got all the information that we were given today. Moreover, after listening and reading and taking some interest in these matters over recent years, I am finding it more and more difficult to accept at their face value statements which are made about some of our aircraft during these debates.
I have made no thorough research, but have taken at random some of the things said recently. Last year, for example, we were informed that the Seamew was well suited to our requirements and filled a gap in our maritime defences. The Sea-mew has now been scrapped, yet it was only a year ago that this House was solemnly assured that it was well suited to our requirements.
In the previous year, 1953, the Under-Secretary of State said that the Swift was the finest fighter in the world. Since then that has been scrapped. It should have been possible for the experts in the Air Ministry to see three years ago whether the Swift was to be a satisfactory aircraft or not. If there were any doubts at all—and there should have been, because doubts had been expressed by individuals who had had the responsibility of testing this aircraft; I knew there were doubts, as did other hon. Members—we should have been told. But we were told by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the Air Estimates that the Swift was the finest fighter in the world.
Then there is the unfortunate story of the Hunter. The Minister looked a little impatient when I said that he used no fresh terms, but he will recognise this phrase from the speech of the Under-Secretary in last year's debate:
there are…restrictions on gun-firing. But…we are well on the way to curing this temporary defect.
That is precisely what we have been told this year about the restrictions on the guns. The Government spokesman then went on to say:
To say that the Hunter is anything but a success is…wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 631.]
Really, that is not treating the House seriously at all. This is not something for consumption in the country; it is information required by Members of the House of Commons, who are being asked

to vote sums of money to pay for these aircraft.
I could go on. Coming to more recent times, the then Minister of Supply told my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), when he had some criticisms to offer about fighters, that he did not believe that
single-seat night fighters could operate in the climatic conditions around this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 878.]
He solemnly stood at the Box and said that whereas, in fact, probably the only effective night fighters in this country at that time were three squadrons of United States Air Force single-seat F 86 Ds. I suggest that such statements are not treating the House of Commons responsibly. I shall not continue with the list, but I would say that instead of being given these glowing phrases about some of these aircraft we, as Members of Parliament, should have an opportunity of cross-questioning some of the experts about the hard facts.
I should have liked to hear something about air-to-ground missiles. We were entitled to hear something about that subject, but we have been told nothing at all today. What is the possibility of our firing missiles 50 or 100 miles from the target and guiding them on to the target by radar? Ought not we to know something about that possibility? What are the chances of our having to meet that kind of threat from the other side? If there is such a possibility, we should naturally want to ask further questions about the endurance of some of our fighters. A little earlier we were told that it was our objective to shoot down an attacker over the sea. Endurance is a very important factor in the question of interception out at sea.
Anxiety was felt in the country about the recent accident to some Hunters. I know that there were special circumstances in that case, and we shall look forward to hearing the report that we have been promised of the investigation into the accident. But, even if there were special circumstances, and even if there are later marks of Hunter with extra fuel tanks on the wings, can we be assured that those fighters can go out and intercept these raiders at 50,000 or 55,000 feet over the sea? If they cannot do so with their ordinary fuel capacity, what about


refuelling? That is one of the most important matters in the Air Force today.
Are we doing anything about refuelling? These are matters of importance, about which we should know something before being asked to pass any opinion about the success or otherwise of the right hon. Gentleman's administration. The Americans are very forthcoming about this information. Why should the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is something about which we are not entitled to know? Are we doing enough to secure the refuelling of fighters or other machines in the air?
Vague general statements are made about ground-to-air missiles, and statements have been made about the desirability of another generation of manned fighters. We should be able to weigh that possibility against the information that is at someone's disposal about ground-to-air missiles. Not until we know those two sets of facts are we in a proper position to know if more money should be spent on another generation of manned fighters. We are told that there could be a supersonic bomber, and we are asked to vote money for that project.
But how far away is the long-range rocket or the ballistic missile? Not until I know that would I, personally, really be able to say that I would vote the taxpayers' money for another generation of manned bombers. Of course, I know that there are security aspects, but I sincerely believe that we overdo this security business in this country; that we use it as an excuse to cover up inefficiency and incompetence.
Then there is the matter of the warning system. I had not heard what an hon. Friend below the gangway has apparently heard concerning the extended warning given by the deployment of radar equipment on the Continent. The Secretary of State has said that this new equipment would give a substantially longer warning; but we ought to know something more about what that means precisely. During last week's defence debate I asked about that, but I had no answer. Can the Secretary of State give any more information? I ask this because we are told that 12 million people, as a matter of policy, are to be evacuated in the event of nuclear attack. That, as

I say, is a matter of Government policy; therefore, what kind of warning can we expect? In what context are we discussing evacuation, apart altogether from the military counter-measures which will be required?
I should like to have said something about Transport Command, in which I have a considerable interest; but that has been the subject of special debate. However, could I ask if the Secretary of State could give some clarification of what he has said about the Comet II? I believe he told us that the Comet II would have a strengthened fuselage—that was a recommendation following the tests at Farnborough—although the only strengthening which the military version would need would be in the floor. I feel that there must be something more than that. Can he clarify that point?
The idea of Britannias for Transport Command is excellent, and I look forward to the day when they are in service. At the same time I shed a tear, and it is no crocodile tear, over the fact that, apparently, we cannot expect to see the Princess flying boat in service. I still feel that there is scope for this fine machine if only we give it the engines.
I do not see the logic of the Secretary of State's remarks about the need only to cultivate the independent operators if we need a reserve. We gave contracts to the independent operators, but to suggest that a reserve is not a reserve because the machines are owned by the two British air Corporations is something I do not follow. Surely it is a very valuable reserve.
I do not expect a reply tonight, but I should like to mention what has already been said about the standard of comfort and general safety of the independent operators' machines; we are told that that is ensured by inspectors who travel on the machines. I have, as a matter of fact, written to him this week—or it may be to the Secretary of State—about a case which has been brought to my attention. It is the case of the wife of a squadron leader who wrote to me from Singapore and said that she was ordered from her seat by one of these inspectors and had to spend most of her time to Singapore in what would be known on civilian aircraft as the ladies' powder room because there was no other seating accommodation available. Even if I


do not get a reply this evening, I shall expect a reply to my letter.
The helicopter programme is to be cut. We have not heard enough about the other type of aircraft which is to replace the helicopter for the advanced work which the helicopter was going to do. The twin-engined Pioneer is being considered. If that requirement is being stated as an actual aircraft in the White Paper we should be doing more than considering the twin-engined Pioneer. If it is considered that in all circumstances the helicopter is not a satisfactory machine then perhaps the development of the Auster aircraft might be suitable.
Turning to the general supply position—the procurement methods for the aircraft—I must say I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). In a most thoughtful speech, he put forward an idea which I hope will be most carefully considered by the Ministry. He gave us some figures about the time taken from design to squadron service of fighter aircraft in the United States—figures on which we should do well to ponder.
On various occasions I have myself raised the question of the length of time taken from design to squadron service of the medium bombers. The Minister of Supply has replied to some of those points on different occasions, and I must say that he has been most complacent about this. He challenged some figures which I gave of the time taken from the beginning of the design work to delivery of the B47 and B52. He maintained that on these machines the United States takes the same time as we do, namely, eight to ten years.
I wish to put on record some dates which I have here, and I hope that at some later date at any rate I shall get the Minister's observations upon these facts. I am told that the design work on the B47 began in December, 1945; that the first prototype flew on 17th December, 1947; that the first production aircraft was in June, 1950; that the first deliveries to the United States Air Forces were in December, 1950, and that the aircraft were in squadron service by mid-1951—a total period of 53½ years.
In regard to the B52—a more complicated aircraft—I am informed that the design work began in the winter of 1949–50; first prototype, 15th April, 1952; first production machine, 5th August,

1954; first deliveries, August, 1955, and they were in squadron service by December, 1955—six years. It is no use the Minister of Supply just brushing me aside when I suggest to him that their times for producing these aircraft were better than were those of our own people, and I should like to have some observations from him about the accuracy of my figures.
Our times are not as good as those of the Americans, and whatever might be the reason, I am quite sure—I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield—that the reason is not because the Air Ministry or the Ministry of Supply are tardy in giving production orders. I am quite certain that that is not the reason for the delay or for the extended time—I shall not call it delay—taken for the delivery of the medium bombers.

Air Commodore Harvey: Then I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the case of the American machines he has just quoted production orders had to be given at an early date, otherwise they would not achieve the time in delivery which he mentioned.

Mr. Beswick: Let us see what the hon. and gallant Member said. He went into it in some detail, and complained that he did not get his order for the two prototypes until the second year. I do not wish to spoil the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think he said that an order was placed for two prototypes in the third year, and that during the fourth and fifth year nothing more was heard. It was not for the Minister of Supply to say anything more. It was for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to do the work on the two prototypes. Then he complained that a third batch of production orders had not yet been received. And yet the first aircraft has not yet been delivered. In other words—

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point, which, was that if a comparatively small number is being ordered, why spread the order over a period for the same type?

Mr. Beswick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that orders were being given in penny packets. I am saying that we are dealing not in penny packets but in millions. It is difficult to place additional orders involving many millions


of pounds before the aircraft has been proved a satisfactory machine.
I am not criticising the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his firm. I am saying that I am certain that the reason for the extended time in this country is not caused by delay in placing orders. There must be some other reason. I go no further than that this evening. It is because I believe there is some other reason that I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick that there should be a much closer inquiry into the ordering procedure as well as manufacturing methods.

Air Commodore Harvey: Orders for two prototypes of each bomber are not enough. A modern aircraft cannot be developed on two prototypes.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting on to dangerous ground, so far as he is concerned. It is not for me to justify what is the responsibility of the Government. If he wants a larger number of prototypes ordered of aircraft costing, say, between £500,000 and £1 million, I would say that we have to be very careful about ordering three different types. If we are told that it is essential to order more than two prototypes we must cut down the number of types for which we place prototype orders.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) also discussed aircraft deliveries and the profit margin for the development contracts. He claimed, surprisingly, that the profit margin was only 4½ per cent. on development work. I suggest that it is considerably more than that in a great number of cases. Seven to 15 per cent. would be nearer the mark. That is on the capital employed. As I have tried to state on other occasions, the capital employed is not the capital belonging to the firm. It can easily borrow money on the strength of a Government contract at rates, even at present, of no more than 6 per cent. If they are getting an initial profit in addition to actual costs, of something between 7 and 15 per cent. on capital employed, no wonder that the returns of these companies at the end of the year are tantalising or provocative.
In view of the profits which have been turned out by some of the aircraft firms which are devoting most of their resources

to the manufacture of aircraft, it is really not good enough for the Government to whitewash them in the way they have done. I know that there is an Estimates Committee considering the point now, and I hope that that Committee is getting all the information it requires.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln also raised a very important point when he spoke about the type of individual who will be needed in the pushbutton Service, as he called it, of the future. I think that most hon. Members will agree that there will have to be some adjustment of our attitude so far as the manpower of the Royal Air Force of the future is concerned, and I hope that the Under-Secretary is going to tell us a little more about the scientific training being given to R.A.F. officers of the future.
We were given the figure of 51 cadets who were going to the universities in order to read mechanical science. I wonder if that figure is large enough in relation to the need. I understand that this advanced training in engineering is being given only to officers in the engineering branch. It seems to me that in the future we shall have to give the general duties officer, the flying crews, much deeper training in engineering matters.
I must say that I have thought of that when, from time to time, we have heard the criticism that the so-called user is not brought into close enough relationship with the manufacturer. I do not want to belittle some of these officers, whom I know to be very fine men indeed, but I have sometimes thought that, even if they were brought into closer relationship with the manufacturers, they would not know what to say or do. Owing to the specifications of a modern aircraft, the type of training now needed before one can intelligently consider them is very different from that which the general duties officer usually receives.
As regards the G.D. officer in the Air Ministry, who has probably been seconded for a period of two years, I do not think that two years is long enough for him to get a grip on the problems involved in the procurement of aircraft. That is a specialised business, and that is why I believe that the Ministry of Supply has an essential part to play in the drawing up of specifications and the ordering of aircraft.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), as well as the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), made some relevant criticisms regarding promotion and welfare problems generally. I hope that some of the matters raised will be given careful consideration.
I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say that we have been impressed by the way in which the Royal Air Force has been ready to have outside investigation into the methods and organisation of the Service. I am certain that great improvements have resulted therefrom. On the other hand, when some of the human and administrative problems are concerned, and when I am told that a committee of scientists which was considering administration and organisation at the Lyneham station solemnly came to the conclusion and offered the recommendation to the Minister that if there were the right number of the right type of people the work would be done more quickly, I feel that we might just as profitably listen more closely to what has been said by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
On the question of manpower, it is sometimes difficult to understand some of the cases of men who have wanted to sign on for a further term and who have either been discouraged in one way or another or have been definitely turned down. Such cases make strange reading against the background of this alleged manpower shortage.
I, like other hon. Members, hold a "surgery" in my constituency. On Saturday two former R.A.F. men came to see me. One was an officer who had worked his way up from A.C.2 to the rank of flight lieutenant in the secretarial branch. He had served for twenty-one years and had been awarded the M.B.E. He had played hockey for the Services team. Yet, when he wanted to sign on again until the age of fifty-five, he was turned down. It was said that he was not wanted. Only six months earlier he had been offered a permanent commission, but at that time his wife was very ill and he could not consider it.
I sent details of another case to the Under-Secretary only recently. It was of

a corporal with eight years' service in the signals branch, where he had worked, I believe, as a teleprinter operator. He had come out into civilian life, had not liked it and had wanted to get back into the Service, but the authorities would not have him. I looked at his record. There seemed to be nothing against him, and he had been promoted to corporal. Why is it that in some instances it appears that there is a sort of blind prejudice working against the re-enlistment of these men?
The subject of batmen has been discussed by a number of hon. Members. We ought to look again at the question of National Service men doing domestic work when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints so rightly says, it ought to be possible, especially with the new pay code, for the families concerned to get their domestic assistance just as other families do, if they find that the work is too much for the lady of the house. That applies especially to Cyprus.
Only on Saturday—and, again, I have written to the Department about it—I was given details of a man who on enlistment was in Grade 2. He had had a serious operation after his call-up, and had been in the Service no more than twelve weeks when he was posted to Cyprus as a batman. Is it necessary to send batmen to Cyprus, anyhow? Cannot we find local labour there? If we are to send men, I should have thought that, in the special circumstances of the time, they ought to be fit men and not men such as this one, who is just out of hospital after an operation on his legs for varicose veins.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of education allowances in the Royal Air Force. This again seems to be one of those extraordinary pieces of obstinacy on the part of somebody in the Government. I think that £67 million is the figure for extra pay and allowances, and yet when we look at education allowances, which are recognised by everybody to be so important, we find cheese-paring.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln made a great point about the more mature men we shall need in the Service of the future. That is true of the men in ground trades and even in flying crews. I was most interested to read a report about one of the crack squadrons in the United States Air Force, which


said that the average age of their pilots was 31. That is a most extraordinary development. The old days of Pilot Officer Prune have gone.

Mr. Birch: Bomber pilots?

Mr. Beswick: No, fighter pilots. Of course, the bomber pilot will be no younger—probably older.
With the new machines we shall depend on the family man. If we are to have men of about 30 years of age, they will think particularly of their children. Several hon. Members have said that recruiting is not only a problem of pay, and it is not. I have found that the question "of the education of my children"—as they put it—comes up over and over again. We could probably have done more with less money in this respect than in any other in connection with recruiting. I do ask the Secretary of State to raise this matter again with the Treasury. I thought it was the Treasury—it must have been—that made the original decision, yet it is the same Treasury which has given these very generous pay and allowances. I think it should look again at the educational allowance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) raised the question of housing for ex-Service men. I think the Secretary of State should tell the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the circular which he sent to local authorities has not solved the problem of housing for ex-Service men. It is still a very serious difficulty, and must have a serious effect on the problem of recruiting. A man comes out of the Service and has no house and no possibility of getting one under the housing policy of the Government.
I wish also to raise the question of employment. An officer coming out at the age of 40 or 45 finds it difficult to get a position in civil life unless he has very special technical qualifications. I wonder if anything more can be done to help in that respect. I have known two or three people who have taken on some sort of a job, but not the kind of job they could have done in the light of the responsibilities that they previously had in the Service. There seems to be almost some prejudice against the Service man who comes out at 40 to 50. If anything could be done to help him, I am sure that it would help the Service generally.
Much has been said about the Royal Air Force. I feel, as I said at the beginning, that if we are really to establish permanent peace in this world it has to be done more on the lines of disarmament than by nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it is the policy to have a Royal Air Force until we get agreement on disarmament. Therefore, I should like to see a really active force and to feel that the people in that force have the sense of belonging to an efficient Service. So far as we can help in this House, we have a duty on those lines.

12.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): We have just heard from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) a most interesting and helpful speech, in the course of which he asked a number of very pertinent questions. We would like to have time to study a number of the questions he put. My right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that he will look again into the question of the hon. Member flying in the Victor, and perhaps something more can be done about that.
I am sorry if I appeared obtuse on the question of the strengthening of the military Comet II. What I meant to say, and what I think I did say, was that the only extra strengthening of the military Comet over and above what was to be done to the civilian Comet was to the floor of the aircraft to enable it to carry the freight.
The hon. Member quoted some figures for the gestation period of American bombers, which I should like to look at and which would require time for study. He also asked whether it would not be advantageous if general duties officers were given more experience in the technical world. Of course, as we are moving into an ever more technical Service—with the use of the push-button, as the hon. Member called it, coming more to the fore—it is vital that the general duties officer, who forms the backbone of the Royal Air Force, should get as much technical knowledge and training as possible. That is being looked into with a view to considering to what extent it can be developed.
The hon. Member mentioned the employment of manpower, especially National Service men, and that question was raised also by the hon. Member for


Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) and the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). We do what we can to see that National Service men get into a trade which will fit in with their civilian professions.
The first R.A.F. station I visited when I went to the Air Ministry was Carding-ton, and I was most interested to see how this worked. It so happened that my going to the Air Ministry coincided with the end of the academic year, which is a most difficult time at Cardington, because that is when young men leaving school want to go straight into the Air Force; there is a flow of men, many of whom are in very high educational categories, and it is extremely difficult to fit them all into suitable tasks.
They are asked what they would like to do and can make five choices. They are put through various tests to see what they would fit into best, and the trades are classified in five grades. To take an example of what may seem an ignominous job that has to be done, and which takes quite a number of men, a cook is a Grade 3 job. I think hon. Gentlemen would agree that it is essential that cooking should not be considered a menial task, for the R.A.F. has to be well fed, in just the same way as the Army.
There are many trades in civilian life for which the R.A.F. would have no use as such. Leather workers have been mentioned, for instance.

Mr. Yates: I mentioned bricklayers. Mr. Fernyhough: And metal workers.

Mr. Soames: Metal workers, of course, we have a use for, but there are a number of trades that the R.A.F. cannot use.
There are some trades in the R.A.F. which are much more popular than others, and for which there is considerable competition. There is a requirement for only so many National Service men in various trades, and the others have to overspill into other trades. After my visit to Cardington I was impressed with the way in which the R.A.F. makes every effort to fit men into suitable trades but the Service cannot guarantee that that can happen in every case.

Mr. Fernyhough: Could the hon. Gentleman say how long cooks have been in Grade 3 category? I well re

member mentioning this problem two years ago on the Estimates, at which time boys who had signed on for three years were told on getting to Cardington that they could be only cooks, administrative orderlies or gardeners on a three-year period, but if they signed on for four years they could be transport or flight mechanics, and so on, so the cook's grade must have been raised in the last two or three years.

Mr. Soames: No. There are certain trades which require a great deal of training, and a man wanting to train for such a trade is told that he must sign on for a certain length of time, so that we get some advantage from all the training given. That is the reason for putting men into those categories.
We had a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who asked how many Regular recruits we had obtained during the past year. The figure for the financial year is not yet complete, but we estimate it to be 21,000, which includes aircrew as well as ground staff, compared with 26,000 for the preceding year.
We are not happy with that figure. We hope that the increases in pay will help to a very large extent to remedy this trend of lower Regular recruiting but, of course, pay is not everything in the Service. We are very much aware of the need to make the Service as attractive as possible. In my view, one of the first priorities is to make it possible for a man to have a full career in the Service if he wishes. The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned the case of a man who wanted to sign on until he was 55. If he will send me particulars of the case I will gladly examine it. It is vital that a full career should be open to a man and that he should not be forced to leave at the age of 40 or 45, perhaps without any experience which might serve him well in civilian life.
The hon. Member for Lincoln asked about "civilianisation." For a number of years we have been replacing men with civilians where it can be done without impairing the effectiveness and mobility of the Air Force. Three out of every ten men paid out of Air Votes are now civilians. We have gone a long way towards civilianising. We should like to go further, but the further we go the more difficult it becomes and we are


coming to the hard core where it is necessary that the men should be in uniform. Civilianising has not progressed very far in this last year because we have been reaching that point, but that does not mean that we shall not continue to do, everything we can about it.
The hon. Member for Lincoln referred to the church of St. Clement Dane, and said that at one station men were placed in an embarrassing position by having to opt out of subscribing towards it. I have looked into the matter. The personnel at that station—and I know only about that one particular station—were asked to return slips stating whether or not they wished to contribute. I agree that this does not appear to have been the happiest way of handling the matter, but I am sure that it sprang only from an excess of zeal for raising as much money as possible for the church, and did not arise from any grave ills inherent in the running of the Service. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing the matter to my notice.
The hon. Member referred to the ballistic rocket—a very big topic. He asked whether we were making or were going to make the 5,000 miles intercontinental ballistic rocket which the Americans are making. What we are going for is the intermediate rocket designed to meet the requirements of geography with which we are faced. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence said last week, there are special and extensive arrangements for close collaboration between this country and the United States on the future of guided missiles. Ballistic missiles come within this arrangement. Limitations on information affecting the war-head are imposed upon the United States by their Atomic Energy Act, but, otherwise, we have the same collaboration in work on these ballistic missiles as we have on other forms of guided weapons.
The hon. Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) asked about the inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War announced in last week's debate on the Army Estimates. The inquiry will concern itself solely with the employment of National Service men in the Army. As my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier this afternoon, a committee under Air Chief Marshal Sir Leslie Hollinghurst has just completed review-

ing the arrangements for servicing aircraft and other technical equipment, and this covers to a large extent the use to which our technical manpower is put.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the employment of batmen and suggested that in these days the service of a batman was an outmoded luxury. I really would not have thought that the provision of batmen on the scale of one to four junior officers could fairly be described in those terms. What worried the hon. Gentleman, I gather, was that any batmen should work in a married quarter, and the purpose of my intervention was, to find out whether he was interested only in that point.
Our view is that an officer living in a married quarter is entitled to the same service as an officer living in the officers' mess. We have issued firm instructions, and those that the hon. Gentleman read out with, I think, some intention to ridicule them, are the kind of instructions that are provided by the Service so that the duties of a batman do not go beyond what they should do. Those instructions are intended to be helpful, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to pursue the matter any further.
He also suggested that it would make conditions of service more attractive if airmen were allowed to claim their discharge at any time they thought fit. The hon. Gentleman thought six months' notice was enough, whereas the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) preferred a fortnight. The hard fact is that a Service cannot be run in that way. We have to plan to send a number of men abroad, and that cannot be done if they can give six months' notice at any time.
In cases of hardship, of course, we always consider compassionate discharge, and that can be immediate, without any notice. But it will not have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman that the new pay code which has been brought out recently puts great emphasis on long service, and the man who signs on for a longer time gets better pay than does the man who is only on short service. Similarly, as I said earlier, the man on long service has a greater chance of getting the trade he wants. I do not think that the House would think it right that a man should have all the benefits, in pay, trade and leave, of long service


and at the same time be able to opt out on notice of a month or so.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing-Commander Bullus) asked about the Miles 100 and the Jet Provost. This arises from an experiment on whether pilots should be taught from the beginning to fly jets, as opposed to, the present system of flying piston-engined aircraft first and then going on to jets. The experiment is most interesting, and hon. Members will realise that we want to be certain that it is right before it is finally adopted by the Air Force as the means of training fighter pilots. However, if we decide to adopt what is called ab initio jet training, those aircraft which are available, of which the Miles 100 is one and the Jet Provost is another, will be considered by the Air Staff, who will decide which would be most suitable to order for the Air Force; and the Miles 100 will certainly get a fair examination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) both made extremely interesting speeches about the technicalities of ordering research and development and the production of aircraft. We shall study with the very greatest care the suggestions which they made. It was interesting to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who has had so much personal experience in these problems, what happened to an aircraft which he knows so well.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) made a most helpful, and also most generous, speech which I am sure will be read with the greatest satisfaction by those serving in the Royal Air Force. If I were to pick out any particular point that he made, it would be one that was also made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge, about housing Service men when their service is over. The House knows the steps that were taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to point out to local authorities what should be their responsibilities in the matter, in the hope that they would view the matter in the light which he wished. We have heard a good deal of comment in the debate

that it is not working out in this way, and I am sure that that will be noticed by my right hon. Friend. I will certainly bring it to his attention, and I hope that he will perhaps be able to take some helpful action to bring about the desired result.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) asked about the maintenance unit at Cosford. I have obtained some information on this, and I can confirm that the unit, a civilian-manned aircraft storage unit, is due to close. The trade unions concerned have been told about it. My hon. Friend inquired whether we could ensure that Members of Parliament should always be informed before, or at the time of, the closing of a large unit. That is a most interesting suggestion. I do not think that it has previously been considered by Service Departments that Members of Parliament should invariably be informed. It is something on which no precise assurance can be given, because it is difficult to know where to draw the line—when an hon. Member should be informed and when it would not be necessary to worry him with it. However, it is a suggestion which we will certainly examine.
We had a most interesting speech on foreign affairs by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus). Then we had from the hon. Member for Ladywood, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock)—and also to some extent from the hon. Member for Gorton—a lot about how it really was not worth arming at all and how the deterrent is something which is quite outdated now and how we are just throwing a lot of our money away. It has always amused me that that view should be held most strongly by those whom I have always considered to be the greatest students of the works of Marx and Lenin. I should have thought that they would have seen from those works how very necessary it was for the West to maintain a deterrent.
There is a tendency, which is by no means absent even in this House, to compare our present front-line aircraft with the types which other nations have in the course of development, rather than with those which they have in general service. This is to weight the comparison improperly against us. We must compare


like with like, the present with the present, and not with three years hence. Other nations also have their development problems, and take time to re-equip their forces. The appearance of a new aircraft in a May Day fly-past over Moscow does not mean, any more than does a Farnborough debut, that it is in widespread squadron service.
Hon. Members will not expect me to attempt to embark on a detailed account of our assessment of the comparative merits of the Royal Air Force and those of a possible enemy; but I can assure the House that such an assessment, even were it confined to aircraft alone, and disregarded such vital factors as morale, training, skill, discipline, logistic backing, and all the other things which go to make an efficient fighting force, would reveal a much less sombre picture than many hon. Members opposite seem to imagine. When we survey the Royal Air Force as a whole, we may feel secure in the possession of an integrated fighting weapon which can hold its own in modern war with any force it may be called on to fight. It has its problems now, as it has always had, and always will have; but it remains a force in whose spirit and capability the nation can rightly have both pride and confidence.

Question put and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57

VOTE A.—NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

Resolved,
That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 257,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received this day; Committee to sit again this day.

VICE, LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

12.55 a.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The subject which I am raising tonight is not a very agreeable one, but I make no apologies for bringing it before the House because it is an issue which must be faced in the interests of the country generally and of London in particular. I do not intend to cover the whole gamut of vice in this brief Adjournment debate. I do not intend to deal with homosexuality, but merely with the issue of prostitution and certain aspects of crime in the West End.
I have been very much concerned to notice, during the last few years, the increasing extent to which prostitution is carried on on our streets; indeed, it is true to say that our streets have now become rather sordid places. Formerly well-known and well-conducted thoroughfares are now becoming squalid vice markets, and this is creating a very bad impression of this country among those who visit us. Before the last war, and after the revolution in Russia, the outstanding impression of a visitor to Russia were the beggars on the streets. The outstanding impression of anyone visiting London is the number of prostitutes on the streets, and it is time that something was done about it.
I find it very distasteful to be accosted by these women from time to time, and I am sure many other hon. Members feel the same. But my feelings are not so important as those of our visitors from the Commonwealth—Australia, New Zealand and Canada—who look at the state of affairs in the London streets and ask themselves, "Is this the centre of the great Commonwealth?"
Moreover, some of the sufferers from this disease are helpless victims. A person may have taken the lease of a shop at a high rent, and it may be a shop which relies a good deal upon men looking in at its windows. But they cannot do so in some of these streets without being accosted. Residents find that property near theirs has been taken over for prostitution and the value of their


property immediately falls. The street becomes a disagreeable place in which to live.
I know that my hon. Friend will say that a committee is now sitting upon this matter, but something should be done before the tourist season starts again, because the position is getting worse and worse. This trade is carried on not only at night, but in the daytime. The Home Office is not very active in the matter. All it has done recently is to run a campaign against obscenity, and prosecute some people for selling the classics. That has not done very much good, and a little energy devoted to the question of prostitution would be a much greater service to the community.
I was told last week by the Home Secretary that it was estimated that about 780 prostitutes were operating in the West End. That may well be a correct estimate. It means that a very extensive business is being carried on in the centre of London, with a turnover of millions of pounds a year. It has been estimated that the turnover in a year is as much as £8 million. That is very big business. The Home Secretary said that he thought that very little of this prostitution was, in fact, organised upon a commercial basis. I cannot understand how the police came to give my right hon. and gallant Friend this information, because it is fair to say that at least 50 per cent. of the prostitution in the West End, in one way or another, is organised upon a commercial basis. It is certainly true to say that no prostitute in the main thoroughfares can put herself on the streets and start her business. She can only be put there by one of the men who feature in this disgusting trade.
Indeed, the organisers of vice are once again gaining a dominating hold. The Messina gang was broken and, for a time, much of the organised vice had gone; but there are new forces moving in to take over prostitution in the West End of London. I am at least glad to say that our own nationals are by no means primarily connected with this disgusting but lucrative trade. The organisers are: first, Maltese; secondly, Cypriots; and, latterly, West Indians. That last fact is very serious from the point of view of this country. West Indians and other negroes are organising prostitution in the West End, and there is evidence that they

are bringing girls to this country from the West Indies for this purpose, as hon. Members can see for themselves in the streets. It is especially serious because our own existing Statutes provide no means for stopping the entry of West Indians.
Something has got to be done to break up this sort of thing; at present, it is conducted on a very large scale. Proof of that is found in the fact that these gangs often fight among themselves. On Christmas morning last year there was a fight in which nearly a hundred men and women were involved in Windmill Street; what might be termed a territorial fight between rival gangs, and this serves to indicate the serious nature of the traffic.
Hon. Members know what happened in the days before the Messina brothers were driven out of this country. We know that two prostitutes were murdered because they intimated to the police that they were willing to talk of what they knew. It is a most serious matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under Secretary will say tonight that the Home Office really is alive to the present state of affairs.
What can be done? Some people may say it is a state of affairs about which very little can be done; that existing circumstances are not very helpful. But I would ask them to remember what happened in Leeds. Not so many years ago, Leeds was, unfortunately, in some respects as disagreeable in relation to prostitution as London is today. But now, one sees the end of street prostitution in Leeds; and if Leeds can achieve that with the right will and enough determination, then surely London can do it. But it needs determination and I would like to list the things which I think ought to be done to put matters right.
This trade is carried on because, first, the penalties are inadequate—and for obvious reasons I cannot say more on that point; secondly, because the police have insufficient resources to deal with it; and, thirdly, because the bribery and corruption so closely associated with the business tend to have a damaging effect on the police. I give those reasons, and list them roughly in their order of importance. The fine of £2, which is the maximum, is really no deterrent in present circumstances; no deterrent at all. It is certainly no deterrent to a girl who—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That would require legislation, would it not?

Mr. Shepherd: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am merely pointing out the difficulties under which the police operate and the nature of the circumstances. I have not asked for that to be dealt with, but, obviously, such a fine for women who are earning anything from £80 to £120 a week cannot be regarded as a deterrent, and is based on Victorian price levels. A Committee is sitting to consider this question—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member that he is now suggesting a remedy which requires legislation.

Mr. Shepherd: No, I am merely saying that a committee is sitting on the question, and I hope that when it reports it will make it clear that this state of affairs is inadequate and that the situation will not be remedied unless we do something about the present level of penalties—although, as you say, Mr Deputy-Speaker, I am myself barred from making any specific recommendations.
One of the evils of the present situation is the rota system on which the police operate. It is now quite true to say that if one is a motorist it is quite easy to acquire three fines per day for leaving one's car in the West End, but that if one is a prostitute one can work seven days a week for two or three weeks and be sure that one will only accumulate perhaps one fine. That is because the police have a system for bringing in these girls in rotation. I know that the intention behind that system is an anti-bribery and corruption intention; nevertheless, the fact is as I have stated it.
The second difficulty is that magistrates object to having a lot of prostitutes brought into their courts. I do not complain of that—it is disagreeable, and' it interferes with the normal work of the courts. I suggest that my hon. Friend might well consider having night as well as day courts. I do not think that that would require legislation. Every person soliciting on the streets could be brought before the courts each night, and that would in a very short time deal a serious blow at this business.
Another factor is the lack of police time—and I do not under-rate the task which the policy have in apprehending the men who carry on this commercial prostitution. It will take five or six officers perhaps three, four, five or six weeks of constant observation to accumulate sufficient evidence to prefer a charge. In the West End—and in all England today—there is a disquieting shortage of men in the police forces. It is, therefore, not easy for the police to find sufficient time to deal with those engaging in this vile trade; and I am very much afraid that the recent decision at the Old Bailey has not given the police much encouragement. The men carrying on this trade can be seen every night in the West End and are well known to the police, but there is the shortage of police and the difficulty of getting the evidence.
The third cause of difficulty in getting convictions is the existence of bribery and corruption in connection with prostitution. When there is so large a trade as this it is impossible to imagine doing away with that element altogether. Until recently it was convenient to pretend that it did not exist, but after recent events nobody any longer pretends that bribery—particularly in connection with this trade in the West End—is nonexistent. I appreciate the difficulty in which my right hon. and gallant and my hon. Friends find themselves. Were I in their positions I should be just as eager as they to spring to the defence of the police, who are inarticulate in this matter.
We can do as much damage to the police force by pretending that things are not as they are as we can by any outright attack upon it and by making it the subject of unreasonable misrepresentation. What I say about the police in the West End of London, and in this particular area, does not apply to the whole of London, or to the country. This is a special problem. We must take special means to deal with it. For obvious reasons I do not want to go into details, but I will say that it is difficult for an outsider to determine, despite the most careful inquiry, the extent to which bribery and corruption affect the question of vice in the West End of London.
I can say without hesitation that it would be wrong to discount it as a factor. What has happened in the last few months


is common knowledge. I ask hon. Members to appreciate the effect that this sort of misdemeanour by a fairly senior officer has on the ordinary man in the police force. I urge my hon. Friend to bear in mind that strong action by the Home Office would not damage the police force. It might well help it. The memory of what happened to Inspector Goddard lingers in the police force even now. He has a case now which I will not deal with as it is the subject of an appeal; but I hope that that case will go, as Goddard's case did, to the Public Prosecutor's office, and that the matter will run its normal course.
I have a suggestion which might help to deal with the situation. I am convinced that we ought to have an assistant commissioner of police appointed specially to look after the West End of London as a whole-time job. It would be a good thing not to have a policeman. I would like to see appointed a man from the Public Prosecutor's office, a man with experience of this state of affairs, who has some legal training; a man who has not been brought up in the police force, a man whose independence and integrity are recognised. If one visualises a state of affairs in which, in another three or four years, penalties are made 25 times as great as they are today, one will realise that the danger of bribery and corruption would be much greater.
This is an issue which must be dealt with not in spasms, when something comes to light through some case, but consistently and persistently. I have tried, briefly and hurriedly, to outline the situation in the West End of London as I see it. It is an unpleasant state of affairs, it reflects badly upon the country and it is desirable that something should be done before tourist season sets in, because visitors to this country are deeply embarrassed by what they see in the London streets.

1.15 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I am not sure that this is a good subject for an Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has made many allegations, most of which I shall not have time to answer. This is a serious matter, first, because it involves a most difficult aspect of law and order in London and,

secondly, because it is obviously a subject which lends itself to colourful generalisations and to damaging allegations of corruption against the police force. I have read a great deal lately on this subject, and more recently have had to study it a great deal.
I do not deny for one moment that what has been written, apart from what my hon. Friend has said tonight, gives cause for public disquiet. If all that has been written were true, it would be profoundly disquieting. Mercifully, a good deal if it is quite untrue. What I have got to do in response to my hon. Friend is to try to sort out the fact from the fiction and the actual from the allegation. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard this as a whitewashing operation, because I can assure him that it is nothing of the kind. He has given his side of the case and I shall give mine.
I think I should begin by making it quite plain that we do not for one moment accept the suggestion that prostitution in the West End is a racket run with the knowledge, approval and concurrence of the police. That is totally untrue, and I should like to say that with all the emphasis I can. Nor does authority wink at cases of such misdemeanour. When allegations are made they are investigated and, if necessary, the offenders are brought to book. On the question of corruption of the police, my hon. Friend said at one point that he did not want to go into detail. I accept that on grounds of time, but it is grossly unfair—and does most serious damage to police morale—for wild general charges to be made in terms so vague that they can neither be investigated nor rebutted.
I accept from my hon. Friend that there are many aspects of life in the West End today which do not make a pretty picture, and certainly not to the tourist. It is not a new situation, and I think it is quite pointless to argue whether it is better or worse, or in what respects it is better or worse, than it was before the last war or even before the war before that. As my hon. Friend said, it is a sordid subject.
There are aspects of the law, particularly those relating to prostitution, which are quite indefensible. We have only recently had one example of that—the law in relation to the letting of premises to prostitutes. We now learn that it has


recently been held that a landlord who lets a flat to a prostitute at an exorbitant rent is not living on immoral earnings. It is this state of affairs and other things like it which led to the setting up of the Departmental Committee on Homosexuality and Prostitution, which is to examine the difficult problems which the present state of the law creates.
I do not want to make much more comment on that. My hon. Friend knows the state of things there as well as I do. Meanwhile, the police have to do the best they can in the present state of the law to keep prostitution within bounds, to obtain evidence to prosecute men living on immoral earnings, and to provide local authorities with the evidence on which to prosecute brothel-keepers.
In giving an account of the police stewardship, I should like to mention these facts. Between 4 o'clock in the afternoon and midnight, fourteen patrols of male police, and two of women police, pay special attention to prostitution in central West London. In 1953, there were 9,779 arrests for soliciting, the great majority in the West End. In 1954, there were 10,948 cases, and last year 11,173–7,230 of them in West London. Last year, observation was kept on 218 suspected brothels—57 of them in West London. Proceedings were taken in 63 cases—five of them in West London—all resulting in convictions. One hundred and three arrests were made in the Metropolitan Police District for living on immoral earnings, and these resulted in 80 convictions. These may look rather humdrum alongside the more colourful accounts of organised vice and connivance, but they represent a great deal of rather thankless, odious work carried out conscientiously by the police force.
I want to say a few words about the police because it is a matter which my hon. Friend raised in the latter part of his remarks, and it is a very serious one indeed. In the past six months, there have been four cases which have given rise to public disquiet—the Jack Spot affair; the prosecution of certain witnesses in that affair; the case of Christopher Glinski; and the prosecution of Police Sergeant Robertson and Messrs. Canter and Page for conspiracy.
From the last case, there arose references to an investigation by Superintend-

ent Hannam which I must mention, because on 17th November the Daily Mail reported that this document uncovered a vast amount of bribery and corruption among certain uniformed officers attached to West End Central Police Station, involving club proprietors, gaming house owners, prostitutes, brothel keepers, and men living on immoral earnings. My right hon. and gallant Friend dealt with that at the time, and I should perhaps add only that no report has been made to the Commissioner or my right hon. and gallant Friend supporting any allegation that the Metropolitan Police in general, or those in the West End of London in particular, are as a body corrupt.
What is true and most disquieting is that conditions in West London and the present state of the law on gambling and prostitution expose officers to great temptation. The Commissioner, as I think hon. Members know, does what he can to reduce risk by moving officers about, but there is a limit to what can be done in that way. I should add that allegations about police misconduct do not go by default. In 1955. in the whole Metropolitan Police District there were 41 cases, 24 signed and 17 anonymous, alleging that the police had taken bribes. All were investigated and one was substantiated.
My right hon. and gallant Friend has been urged that there should be a public inquiry. It may be that something of, that sort is in the mind of my hon. Friend. My right hon. and gallant Friend thinks that such an inquiry is the proper duty of the Commissioner. The Commissioner will investigate any specific allegation of corruption, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is satisfied that he can do it as effectively as it can be done.
On balance, however, I have no hesitation in saying that the responsibility for the present state of affairs lies really more with the law makers than with those responsible for enforcing it. The law is open to contempt in this field, and whenever the law is open to contempt those enforcing it are exposed to charges of, at best, inactivity and, at worst, connivance or corruption. Correcting the law will not be a simple matter. I must not refer to it in more than general terms, but I can say that an argument generally as to what the law should be is one of


the oldest social problems of civilisation. I should not care, and I do not think that my hon. Friend would care, to draw up a plan for putting it in order; still less should I care to be a uniformed policeman trying to enforce it as it is now.
The Wolfenden Committee may offer the chance of a change. It has nearly finished taking evidence, but I cannot say when its report will appear. Meanwhile, my right hon. and gallant Friend feels most strongly that it should not be anticipated, even for the possible benefit

of the tourists. We must do our best with the material we have and that, though subject to rare lapses by those in authority and though requiring constant vigilance by those in higher authority and those exposed to a great many difficulties, is a good deal better than some of the colourful rubbish which has been written recently would have us believe.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.